Dogmatic Panoply (Prologue and Titles I–XXVIII)

Herein are all things gathered together, By the organization of the wise Prometheus, Alexius, king of the land of the Ausonians, Mind-of-God, Ruler, most pious of men, Whom the providence of the man-loving Word In the exhaustion of difficult times, And of these manifold necessities, Brought as a great stroke of fortune to the Romans, A resourceful, perfected general, An excellent, chosen leader, And before the power, a fortification, and after the power, A bulwark, a source of strength for the sovereignty, Whose achievements are many and strange, And whose trophies against enemies are numberless. But the seal of all, and a propitious crown, Is the Dogmatic Panoply, The firmness of the Orthodox faith. For the collection of divinely-inspired words Is a bright mark of a pious king, Who, wishing to join battle with the adversaries, And to engage them in a rational combat, Having in these—against them—been well armored, Let him set forth fearlessly in these mechanical arms. By the same. The program of this book of dogmas Is the preoccupation and sweet labor of Alexius, Of New Rome, reigning piously, And radiating a bright light of virtues. A public-spirited treatise, power of the faith, A pillar triumphing over spurious words. A concise gathering of Orthodoxy, A refutation shaming and disgracing Those who are apostates from the true faith. A divine storehouse of instruments for battles, Which overthrow the walls of doctrines ^A hated by God and leading the people astray, A fountain through which flow divine teachings, A stream that is truly, in itself, of venerable dogmas, Wholly flooding and dragging down The profane heresies of the heterodox. A terrible quiver of arrows that slay doctrines, A net of syllogisms, and a sling, To those of God [it is] light, but fire to the aliens. A trumpet striking terror into the adversaries, A Panoply shielding those who have need [of it], A complete set of armor slaughtering those who drive away God. But O Trinity, three-shining, and Triad again, One light radiating from the Godhead, Guard the Sun of the Palaces, ^B The artificer of such great strength. Then this moon of the empire, A fair helper joined [to him] by God, And the longed-for Morning Star of the Purple, The finest blossom, our new Master, Granting peaceful consensus in life, And a long, and pain-free, existence, And a life brought to an end in ease, Saving them household and kin, crowning them on high, Clad in incorruptible radiance. By the same. As the reigning crown-bearer was pleased, As he ordered in writing, as he showed me, I hastened to construct the Panoply. ^C These things, then, having learned, O judges of the book, Rejoice, and cast with your praises The sharp-witted and great king. For to him, and to him alone, be all the thanks. For if it is fitting to speak the truth, The affair is ingenious; let envy fall.

PROLOGUE WITH ENCOMIUM FOR KING ALEXIUS COMNENUS ON THE DOGMATIC PANOPLY

^D Euthymius’ labor and lone hermit’s work, Zigabenus’ Panoply of dogmas, Fashioned for Alexius of the Comnenian line, Faithful King, for the battle against the faithless.

And indeed, all the achievements of our most great and God-governed king Alexius are conspicuous and brilliant and worthy of admiration: the scientific ordinances of political affairs, the skillful handlings and graspings of military strategies, [his] good counsels, the suggestions of his mind, and the inventions of machines, in no way inferior a great many times to those of Archimedes and Palamedes; the well-considered answers, and the sharpness of mind full of sense toward the legates of the great nations; and all the rest, to speak briefly, from which

the emperor, ^A fortified and defended on all sides, is known and recognized as being able to rule the state, to extricate himself from difficulties, and to adapt himself usefully and learnedly to circumstances and situations. But this purpose and counsel of his is above all to be praised and celebrated, that he took care to collect the decrees of the orthodox faith. Nor, although he was constantly distracted by so many worldly troubles, countless tasks, and most serious occupations, did he think this part should be neglected by him, as it was by many previous emperors, for whom it was enough—as it is for most private men of that or the present time—to possess only the elementary and brief confession of faith, which is also called the sacred Symbol. But he, having learned and perceived by ^B experience that pestilent and impious opinions had once again crept into many parts of the Roman Empire, and perhaps on account of the long and protracted dominance of the enemy, that the tares of heretical doctrine—which is useful for nothing but to be burned—had been sown and spread among the good wheat, and that they were being irrigated by the murky streams of sermons from their own teachers so that they might flourish and grow; moved in his soul, and inflamed by their remarkable audacity and madness, he judged that he must confront such an evil and apply a remedy. Therefore, when any time remained for him from public business, most serious duties of the state, and cares, he spent it all in accurately reading through the volumes of the divine Scriptures, ^C and he discussed them with those distinguished men with whom the palace is always wont to be filled; he honored especially the approved sermons, for which his soul burned with a certain immense love. From which it happened that, sharpening his tongue by the custom of such discourses, just as iron is tempered by cold water, and being whetted by the friction of such words, he was fashioned into a two-edged sword for the cutting down of blasphemous opinions and doctrines, and as an axe “hewing the rock,” to use the words of Scripture, he escaped the rough, hard, and utterly senseless stubbornness of the God-opposing men. This I can attest, for I observed and noted the matter when it chanced that I was twice present while he was debating. For some who encountered him, he struck and cast down at close quarters with these arms. ^D Others, however, he sought to lead back to health and the best fruit by capturing and enticing them with the sweetness of his speech, and by mixing much patience and gentleness into his words. And so that those who reign after him might be led to imitate him, he thought it very wisely best to provide a written preparation of dogmatic arms—both for them and for all his subjects—and spiritual siege engines, and logical machines, just as those who have composed the so-called "Tactics," not usurping the work of the high priests, but rousing even them by his own example, and indeed providing an alliance.

^A For it is necessary that, when he who holds the authority to speak concerning the faith is inappropriately silent, and the Word is in danger of being grasped, not only the most pious emperor—who even grants authority to the dogmas of the high priests through his own inclination and discernment—but also a simply faithful man, who knows how and is able to speak, should defend and protect the truth when it is imperiled, unless, perhaps, someone ought to be accused of a crime for killing some savage and deadly beast, for the reason that, not being a native, he has nevertheless removed from the midst a common plague and liberated the inhabitants and natives from its destruction and danger. Therefore, having selected the dogmas of the blessed Fathers and champions of the true faith through the wise and most experienced men of the present time, and having gathered them together, he entrusted to me the composition of these, and commanded me to impose upon them an order, and a well-considered harmony, and a rational arrangement. And since it was not possible to shrink back, now that the Word and God [Himself] lead the composition of the accounts, through whom the hands are also taught for battle and the fingers, in writing, successfully wage the war against the heresies: we must straightway proceed to the undertaking, and we must construct, or rather, draw up in battle array, a "Panoply" for those wishing to fight for piety and to clash with its enemies, having an adamantine defense, but a most timely and, in sum, an unconquerable and truly heaven-forged power. ^B For there is a necessity, when he who holds the authority [to speak concerning the faith is—as I said—inappropriately silent,] even if he should call them to battle and rouse the spiritual soldiers, to unfold this [Panoply] and, according to the forms of the wars, to shield ourselves with the weapons stored within. For these are manifold, and abundant, and sufficient for every kind of war. And since, as Gregory the Theologian says, every argument is twofold—the one establishing its own position, the other overturning the opponent’s—we too, having first set forth our own position, shall thus attempt to overturn that of our opponents; and yet both are performed through the all-wise Fathers, as has been said, who have labored before us on behalf of the Word, and who, like an inheritance, have left to us their own arguments, and the various entanglements from these against the adversaries, and the methods of their heroic deeds. ^C The malign heresies will be set forth in a certain order according to the times, as if by a pruning of evils, having the refutations following after them, and those who on each occasion excelled in running against them through their own counter-arguments and striking them down. The older ones, therefore, as having long since rotted away and being entirely corrupted, we have passed over, but the more notable ones—and those whose coals, even if the flame has been extinguished, still annoy the Church—these we have set up as targets to be struck and shot down with arrows. And if any of those in between and near at hand have crept in as offshoots or suckers of these, we have taken care that these also, because of the downfall of those previously set forth, should be cast down along with them. ^D This book shall be called the *Dogmatic Panoply*, or *Armory of Dogmas*, so that when the time of fighting arrives, and it is necessary for the spiritual defenders to be armed, it being opened, they may be equipped with weapons appropriate to the war of the hour. For this [book] will abundantly provide various kinds of missiles and weapons for waging and finishing all wars. [alt-version omitted]

^A From whence, then, must we begin our proposed work and study? From whence other than where the great Gregory, in his Theology, begins when he speaks of God: "There are three opinions concerning God: anarchy, polyarchy, and monarchy." The first two were played with by the children of the Greeks, and let them be played with; for that which is anarchic is disordered, and that which is polyarchic is seditious, and thus anarchic, and thus disordered. For both lead to the same confusion, and confusion leads to dissolution; for disorder is a training for dissolution. To us, however, monarchy is what is honored; but by monarchy I do not mean that which is bounded by a single person, and so forth.

It remains, then, that we should briefly and concisely speak against the godless Epicureans, and against the other Greeks who favor polyarchy, and against the godless Greeks, and having exposed and refuted the contrary error of these and those in a cursory manner, we shall thus proceed to our own matters. For as for the Greeks, some have given the sun, others the moon, others the multitude of the stars, and others the heavens themselves, along with these, the power to govern the whole, according to the quality or quantity of their motion; others have looked to the elements—earth, water, air, fire—because of their utility, without which it is impossible for human life to subsist; and others have worshipped whatever they happened to see among visible things, having set up as gods those which they perceived to be the most beautiful.

Concerning Epicurus, and in how many ways the atom is understood.

Against the Epicureans, from the discourse of the great Gregory the Theologian on theology.

^A all things have come into being or subsist, if God did not both create and preserve them all? And just as, if someone were to look at the beauty and arrangement of a most perfectly crafted lyre, or listen to its harmony, he would at once grasp in his mind the craftsman and player of that lyre, and be drawn to him, even if he happened never to have seen him with his eyes; so, too, to us the creator is manifest—the one who preserves and reveals the things that have been made, even if he is not encompassed by the mind. And he is truly senseless who does not voluntarily advance even to this point, and follow along with natural proofs.

Against the same, from the same discourse.

^B But the Word, having received us as we are, longing for God, and not tolerating that the world should be without a leader and governor, then applying itself to the things that are seen, and encountering the beginning, did not stop even at these. For it was not reasonable to grant the leadership to things that are equal in honor according to our senses, and through them to be led to that which is above them, and through whom they all have their being. For who is it that ordered the heavenly and earthly things, all those in the air and all those in the water, or rather, the things prior to these: heaven and earth, and air, and the nature of water? Who mixed these things and divided them? What is the communion of these toward one another, and their mutual growth and breathing together? For I praise the one who said this, even if he is an outsider. What is it that has moved these things, and leads them in their unceasing and unimpeded course? Is it not the craftsman of these things, who implanted a principle in all of them, according to which the whole is carried and conducted? Who, then, is the craftsman of these things? Is it not the one who made these things, and brought them into being? For surely, we must not grant such power to chance. ^C For let us concede even that their coming-to-be is of chance; whose work is it to order them? And this, if it pleases, let us grant. Whose work is it to sustain and preserve them, after the first principles were established? Is it that of someone else or of chance? It is clearly of someone other than chance. And what could this possibly be, if not God?

From the book of Gregory of Nyssa, the bishop, which is entitled On the Knowledge of God, against the same.

^D If all things that are in the world consist of the mixture of simple elements—I speak of earth, and water, and air, and fire—or of what Epicurus calls the indivisible corpuscles, then that which is generated will be found to be incomparably superior and more precious than the ungenerated, and the thing made more excellent than the maker, to as great a degree as man is more distinct than those simple elements and the aforementioned atoms. Besides, how could things which are by nature contrary to one another come together without detriment to the completion of a single world? Or how could they have come together and agreed with one another without counsel and reason? Or how could they have implanted reason in man, being themselves entirely devoid of it, since they are—in respect of mind and...

^A stature—many times inferior to the elephant, yet man commands the elephant by reason, with which he has been bountifully endowed by his Creator? ^B Indeed, how can it be said that orderly things have come into being from things that are carried along by chance and at random

Against the remaining Greeks, from the oration of Saint Gregory the Theologian on the Holy Lights.

For it was not only a grave thing that those who were created to live uprightly, to seek the praise and glory of their Creator, and to imitate God as far as is possible, became a repository for all the vices that inwardly consume and corrupt the inner man; but also that they forged gods for themselves who favored and assisted their vices, so that sinning would not only be permitted with impunity, but even seem praiseworthy and divine, being done by the example of their own gods.

Against the same, from the same oration.

^C As if, if they had to fall away from piety entirely and retreat from the true worship of God, they had to be led to idols and the works of art and the handiwork of men. For what more severe judgment could those who have understanding have possibly invoked against them—if they were wise—than that they should worship and adore such gods, that they might, as Paul says, receive the recompense which was due for their error, in the things they worship, not so much honoring them as bringing disgrace upon themselves by their worship? They are to be despised for their error, but even more to be scorned for the filth and shame of those whom they revere and worship, so that they appear more senseless than the images themselves, and are as much more demented as their deities are baser and more abject.

Against the same, from the oration on Theology.

They thought that gods should be worshipped with blood, and burnt offerings, and sometimes even by disgraceful deeds, and madness, and human sacrifices. For such was the worship that it was fitting for such gods to receive.

Against the same, from the oration on the Holy Lights.

^D These are the inventions of dark demons, the figments of an insane and wretched mind, confirmed by time and cloaked in myths. For what they worship as true, they hide as though it were a fiction. Yet it would have been more equitable, if these things were true, not to call them myths; but if they were fictitious, not to marvel at them. Nor should they so rashly hold contradictory opinions about the same matter—behaving not like men conversing with wise people who worship God with reason, and who despise and disdain these artificial and sordid fabrications of theirs, but rather as if they were playing with children in the marketplace. But since we have refuted what is alien, come, let us establish and confirm our own.

INDEX OF THE BOOK ENTITLED DOGMATIC PANOPLY

Titulus I. — A syllogistic demonstration that God is one, and that he has a Word of the same nature as himself, and likewise a Spirit—which are the Son and the Holy Spirit—from the Catechetical Discourse of the prelate Gregory of Nyssa. ^A

Titulus II. — Regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a theology at once distinct and united.

Titulus III. — Regarding God or the Divinity in general. Whoever speaks of God, or the Divinity, or the divine Power simply and indeterminately, indicates by the common appellation of these the three hypostases, or persons, of the one divinity. ^B

Titulus IV. — That the divine nature cannot be comprehended.

Titulus V. — Regarding the divine appellation.

Titulus VI. — Regarding the divine creation.

Titulus VII. — Regarding the divine humanation.

Titulus VIII. — Against the Hebrews, from the book, as it is reputed, of Nyssen, entitled On the Knowledge of God.

Titulus IX. — Against Simon the Samaritan, and Marcion the Pontian, and the Persian Manes, and the Manichaeans.

Titulus X. — Against Sabellius, from Saint Cyril.

Titulus XI. — Against the Arians, by the great Athanasius. ^C

Titulus XII. — Against the assailants of the Holy Spirit.

Titulus XIII. — By Photius the patriarch, against the Latins, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son.

Titulus XIV. — Against Apollinarius.

Titulus XV. — Against the Nestorians.

Titulus XVI. — Against the Monophysites, whose arch-heretic is Eutyches the archimandrite.

Titulus XVII. — Against the Aphthartodocetae.

Titulus XVIII. — Against those who say, "The God Word suffered impassibly." ^D

DOGMATIC PANOPLY. – TIT. I.

^A Title XIX. — Against the Agnoetae, who say that the Son, being lesser than the Father, is ignorant of the day and hour of the consummation of the world. Title XX. — Against Origen. Title XXI. — Against Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul, patriarchs of Constantinople, who taught that there is one will and energy in Christ; who are also called Monothelites. Title XXII. — Against the Iconoclasts. Title XXIII. — Against the Armenians. Title XXIV. — Against those who are called Paulicians. Title XXV. — Concerning the Cross, concerning holy baptism, and concerning the transmutation of the Lord's body and blood. Title XXVI. — Against the Massalians. Title XXVII. — Against the Bogomils. ^B Title XXVIII. — Against the Saracens. Appendix. — From the epistle of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Michael, Prince of Bulgaria, concerning the seven ecumenical councils.

OF EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, MONK DOGMATIC PANOPLY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH.

^C TITLE I. A syllogistic reasoning, by which it is demonstrated that God is one, and that the Word is of the same nature, and likewise the Spirit, namely the Son and the Holy Spirit. From the catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa.

When a dispute is instituted with any of those who favor the opinions of the Greeks, it is convenient that at the beginning of the dispute he be asked whether he confesses that God exists, or denies it. If he denies it, he will be compelled by the reason and wisdom that flourish in the governance of the world to confess that a certain power is indicated which presides over all things. But if he does not doubt that He exists, but nevertheless thinks that there are many gods, we shall proceed with him as follows: whether he considers the deity to be perfect or imperfect, and therefore, as is right, attributing perfection to the divine nature, we shall ask again whether he says it is perfect in all those respects which are perceived in divinity, so that it does not consist of opposites, and of the perfect and the imperfect.

^Abuente divinæ naturæ, rursum rogabimus, num a omnibus illis rationibus, quæ in divinitate cernuntur, perfectum dicat, ne ex contrariis, perfectoque et imperfecto constet. Quo item concesso, non erit difficile adversarii animum deorum multitudine distractum adducere, ut divinitatem unam esse fateatur. Nam si perfectum omnibus partibus dabit, multaque eodem pacto perfecta dicet, necesse erit, ut in iis quæ nulla ratione discrepabunt, sed eadem prorsus videbuntur, aut proprium aliquid ostendatur, aut si proprii nihil apparuerit, nullam animus differentiam poterit cogitare. Etenim si nec ea re discrimen comprehendetur, quod majora minora-ve sint, quoniam perfectionis ratio non admittit, ut minor sit: nec quod deteriora sint, aut præstantiora, quia divinitas non cadit in id quod deterius appellari potest: nec quod antiquiora recentiora-ve sint, quandoquidem id quod semper non est, ab eo quod numen ac Deum esse mens concipit, abest: cum una eademque sit divinitatis ratio, nullaque in ea vere proprietas reperiatur, necessarium est, ut qui opinionis errore multos sibi deos fingebat, unam divinitatem esse fateatur. Nam si bonum, et justum, et sapiens, et potens, et incorruptum, et æternum, et reliquæ omnes piæ notiones ita congregentur, ut omnis omnino tollatur differentia, his omnibus in uno eodemque conclusis, necessario aufertur deorum multitudo.

First Title

Verum quia religionis veritas quamdam personarum ^C differentiam perspicit in unitate naturæ, ne dum Græcos impugnamus, in Judæorum labamur errorem, non alienum est, ut eam quoque artificiosa quadam distinctione confutemus et refellemus. Nec ii quidem, qui a nostra religione abhorrent, numen rationis expers constituunt, hoc autem nobis concessum satis est ad id quod volumus comprobandum. Qui enim Deum non esse rationis expertem confitetur, is eum habere rationem concedit. Atqui eodem nomine dicitur etiam humana ratio. Quare si quis ad rationis nostræ similitudinem Dei rationem cogitabit, mox ad notionem sublimiorum perducetur. Necesse enim est, ut eodem modo ratio seu oratio congruat naturæ, quo reliqua item omnia conveniunt. Nam licet in homine vita, et potentia, et sapientia cernatur, non tamen ob nominum similitudinem eamdem in Deo vitam, aut potentiam, aut sapientiam dices, sed pro humili naturæ nostræ conditione demittentur et extenuabuntur harum vocum significationes. Etenim quoniam mortalis et imbecilla est natura nostra, idcirco et vita brevis est, et potentia infirma, et ratio sive oratio incerta. At quidquid de supremæ illius naturæ magnitudine dicitur, id magnum eique congruum est. Proinde cum Dei ratio, sive oratio verbum-ve dicimus, id non intelligimus tale, ut, quemadmodum in nobis ^D

^Abuitiae, sed ad nihilum tendat. Rather, as our nature, since it is mortal, possesses also a mortal word, so the immortal and ever-subsisting nature possesses an immortal and everlasting Word. Yet if it is conceded from these points that the Word of God always subsists, it is necessary to confess that it subsists in life. For it is not reasonable to conceive of it as lifeless, like stones. But if it is, being intelligent and incorporeal, it certainly lives. If it is separated from life, it does not exist in subsistence at all. But it has been shown to be impious to argue that the Word of God is without subsistence; therefore, it has been shown in consequence that this Word is to be viewed as within life. ^B And since the nature of the Word is believed to be simple, and shows in itself neither duality nor composition, no one could imagine the Word to be merely a participant in life. For such a thought would not be free from composition, seeing that it would constitute one thing in another. Therefore, the simplicity of the Word being conceded, it is necessary to confess that it is not a participant in life, but is life itself. But if the Word lives, and is, therefore, life itself, it surely possesses the faculty of intent and will. For there is nothing among things that live that is devoid of this faculty. Furthermore, one must consider that its intent and will are capable of being realized. For if anyone does not grant that which is possible, he will never find that which is impossible. But when we think about God, we remove from Him whatever is impossible; for nothing dissonant falls into the divine nature. Moreover, it is necessary to confess that the power of the Word is as great as the intent of its will, lest any mixture of opposites and coincidence be viewed in that which is simple, and lest that which is impossible and that which is possible appear in the same intent, since it has the power to effect one thing and not another. However, since all things can be accomplished by the intent of the Word, it is moved to effect nothing ^C that is evil. For the motion of the divine nature is alien to evil. But whatever is good, that it also wills; and what it wills, it is also fully able to do. And what it can do, it does not leave unperformed, but whatever good things it proposes to itself, these it brings to completion. Now the world and all the parts of the world, which are seen to be fashioned wisely and with skill, are good. Therefore, they are the works of the living and subsisting Word, since it is the Word of God; and they are the works of the intent of Him who proposes and deliberates, since it lives, and has the power to lead to the end whatever it has proposed and decreed, yet decrees nothing but what is good and wise, or whatever else is declared by some better term. Therefore, because we have shown the world to be good, and have indicated that the world is the work of the Word—which, being good, first decrees and then has the power to bring to pass what has been decreed—it is evident that this Word is distinct from Him whose Word it is. For in a certain way this also is one of those things that are spoken of in relation to another, since necessarily, upon hearing "Word," one must also understand the Parent of the Word. For there would be no Word, unless it were the Word of someone. Since, therefore, you distinguish by the relative meaning of the ^D hearing the mind, both the Word itself and that from which it is, then no longer would it be a danger to us...

- ^A buting—if the hearers distinguish in their thought both the Word himself and Him from whom the Word is—the mystery will no longer be in danger for us, nor, while we refute the opinions of the Greeks, shall we appear to agree with those who subscribe to Jewish views. For just as we say that in our own case as well, the word proceeds from the mind—being neither absolutely the same as the mind, nor yet entirely different (for in that it proceeds from it, it is something other than it is; yet in that it makes the mind manifest and explicable, it is not thought of as something other than it, but as one by nature, differing only in subject)—so also the Word of God, in that He subsists by Himself, is distinguished from Him from whom He has His subsistence; but in that He manifests in Himself these things which are seen in God, He is the same by nature as He who is found through those very characteristics. For whether one might posit goodness, or power, or wisdom, or eternal existence, or immunity from evil, death, and corruption, or perfection in all things, or any other such symbol ^B by which the Father is comprehended, he will find the Word, who subsists from Him, by the same symbols.

Concerning the Holy Spirit

Just as we learned to ascend from the things concerning us to that supreme nature, so in the same way we shall be led to an understanding concerning the Spirit, by observing in our own nature certain shadows and images of that ineffable power. And yet, the spirit in us is derived from ^C something external, namely, from the air, which is necessarily drawn in and exhaled for the constitution of the body, and which, when a word is uttered, becomes a voice declaring the power of the word within itself. But in the divine nature, although it is considered pious to think of the Spirit of God—just as the Word of God is also esteemed, given that the Word of God is considered in no way inferior to our word—if, when the Word is considered with the Spirit, the former were believed to be without the Spirit; yet it is not right to think it an element foreign to God, flowing in from without, nor that a ^D God-befitting spirit is thus formed within Him. But just as when we hear of the Word of God, we have not imagined the Word to be a thing devoid of substance, nor something produced by learning, nor something brought about through a voice, nor something dissolved after being uttered, nor suffering anything else of the sort that we see happening to our own word, but rather as subsisting essentially, as voluntary and active, and thus all-powerful; so too, having learned of the Spirit of God, who accompanies the Word and reveals His activity, we do not conceive of Him as a mere breath of air. For the majesty of the divine power would be cast down toward humility if the Spirit in Him were imagined according to the likeness of our own; rather, we conceive of Him as an essential power, subsisting by Himself in a distinct person, which can neither be separated from God in whom He is, nor from the Word of God whom He accompanies, nor melted away into non-existence.

Wherefore, he who diligently contemplates the profound mystery ^A gathers in the secret of his soul a certain moderate doctrine of divine knowledge, yet he cannot express with his tongue this unutterable depth of the mystery: namely, how the same thing is both numerable and yet admits of no enumeration; how it is perceived as divided, and yet understood simultaneously; how it is distinct in persons, and yet not divided in nature. For the Spirit is one person, the Word is another, and he whose the Word and the Spirit are is another still. But when you have thought upon their distinction, the unity of nature admits of no division, lest either the power of the sovereignty and empire be shattered and cut into diverse divinities, or the Jewish opinion be confirmed; but rather, the truth walking in the middle between both opinions removes both heresies, while taking from each what is useful. For it refutes the doctrine of the Jews by the acceptance of the Word and the belief in the Spirit, and it deletes the errors of the Greeks by establishing the unity of nature, by which the fabrication of many is destroyed and abolished. Conversely, it admits in the light of the Jewish opinion the unity of nature, and from the opinion of the Greeks the distinction of persons alone. And thus it cures both diseases of impiety. For, as it were, the number of the Trinity is the medicine for those who err concerning the One, and the principle of unity is the remedy for those who distract [the Godhead] into many. ^B

The syllogistic demonstration of Damascenus regarding the same matters, that God exists.

Whatever is, either is created or is not created. And if it is created, it was altogether created by another; but if it is not created, it would be that which created the things that are created; for the supreme Creator must be uncreated. And what else would this be but God? Who, therefore, will not confess that all things, except God, which are comprehended either by reason or by sense, are created? And if they are created, they are also mutable. For those things whose existence began from change are altogether subject to change, either being corrupted, as are things contained in the world, or being changed by choice, as are angels and souls, both in the progression toward good and in the movement toward evil. Since, however, God is altogether uncreated and immutable, ^C for those whose essence is different, the principle of their essence is also contrary. Furthermore, not only do the things which we see created declare their Creator, but also their order, harmony, and preservation. For how would the contrary natures of the elements have come together for the perfection of one world unless someone had reconciled them, joined them, and held them together? Or how would they preserve the order prescribed to them from the beginning unless there were someone who was their ruler and moderator? ^D

The same one's syllogistic reasoning demonstrating that God is one

The same one's syllogistic reasoning declaring the Word and the Son to be

The same one's syllogistic reasoning proving the Holy Spirit to be

The same one's most admirable reasoning by examples, demonstrating the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit

down to us. In the same way, the Son and the Holy Spirit descend to us without separation from the Father or from each other, working our salvation. And just as in those examples the radiance accompanying the ray is imparted to us through that ray, so too the Holy Spirit, accompanying the Son, is communicated to those who are worthy through Him, in the dispensation of the gifts. For, He says, "He breathed upon them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit." ^A And just as in those examples light is said to be both of the sun and of the ray, so too in this case the Spirit is said to be both of the Father and of the Son, that is, of Christ.

TITLE II.

That the Father is the fountainhead of the Godhead, and the Son and the Spirit are, if one may so speak, divinely-born shoots of the generative Godhead, resembling blossoms, and lights surpassing essence, is what we have received from the holy oracles; but how these things are, is impossible either to say or to conceive.

From the first chapter of the work on the Divine Names.

Wherefore, in almost every theological treatise, we see the Godhead sacredly celebrated as both Monad and Henad: as Monad, because of the simplicity and unity of the essence that surpasses all nature, out of which, as if by a unifying power, we are united, and our divisible differences, being combined in a manner above the world, are gathered into a God-like ^C monad and a God-imitating union; but as Trinity, because of the three-personed manifestation of the super-essential fecundity, "from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth exists and is named."

From the thirteenth chapter of the work on the Perfect and the One.

And the Godhead, which is celebrated as Monad and as Trinity, is not a monad or a trinity known either to us or to any other of existing things. But in order that we may truly celebrate Its super-united and God-generating nature by means of the Trinitarian and unified term—whether monad, or trinity, or number, or unity, or fecundity, or any other thing known among existing beings—none of these can disclose the hiddenness of the super-essential Godhead, which is above all and super-essentially above all; nor does It have any name, nor any discourse, but It is exalted in the inaccessible. ^D

From the third chapter of the work on Mystical Theology.

In the book which we have inscribed "Theological Institutions," we have declared the principal points of affirmative theology: how the divine and good nature is said to be one; how it is trinitarian; what is the notion of the Father, and what of the Son, according to it; and what the Holy Spirit signifies.

^A For what reason do the intimate lights of goodness spring forth from the incorporeal and indivisible Good, and how do they remain inseparable in their co-eternal springing both in Him, and in themselves, and in their mutual indwelling, so that they never depart from it?

From the chapter concerning the united and distinct theology.

^B In the divine union, or that nature which transcends essence, that which is joined to the primary Trinitarian existence and is common to it is the essence-surpassing existence, the God-surpassing godhead, the goodness surpassing goodness, the unity surpassing the first-principle, the ineffable, that which is declared by many voices, the ignorance which is everywhere understood, the position of all things, the negation of all things, the excellence surpassing every position and negation, and—if it is permitted to say so—the mutual indwelling and seat of the governing persons, united beyond measure and in no part confused, even as the lights of lamps—to use examples exposed to the senses and appropriate to us—when they are in one house, and the whole is in the whole; and they have a precise distinction, though specifically subsisting from one another, united by the distinction and, by the union, again distinct. And so we see, when many lamps are in a house, all the lights united into one certain light, exhibiting one indivisible radiance. ^C Nor could anyone, I suppose, separate the light of this one lamp from the others out of the air that contains all the lights, and view one apart from the other, when the whole is inserted into the whole without mixture. But if one were to remove one lamp from the midst of the room, it will go out taking all its own light with it, drawing nothing along with it from the other lights, nor leaving anything of its own to the others. For there was there, as I said, a perfect conjunction of the whole with the whole, entirely without mixture, and by no part confused. And these things are thus, even though the light is in a body, and in air, and depends upon matter—namely, fire. ^D Yet we say that that union which is higher than essence transcends not only the unions that occur in a body, but those also which are brought about in souls, and even these which are effected in minds—which that whole divine and super-celestial light, through the whole, possesses more than mundanely and most sincerely, by a certain communion of that unity which excels all and imparts itself to each according to their capacity. But there is a distinction in the supreme theology, not only as I was just saying—because in the divine unity itself each of the governing persons preserves its own pure and unmixed property—but also because those things which are in that divine and essence-surpassing generation do not convert into one another. For the Father alone is the fountain of the essence-surpassing divinity; the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. Therefore, the sacred hymns piously and holily preserve their own to each of the divine persons.

From the same chapter. "There is none good but one, that is God." That and elsewhere

^A it has been examined and demonstrated by us that all the God-becoming names are celebrated in the holy Books not partially, but in the whole and complete and integrated and full divinity; and that all of them are ascribed indivisibly, absolutely, without exception, totally, to the entire integrity of the all-perfect and entire divinity. And truly, as we reminded you in the theological summaries, if anyone does not confess that this is said concerning the whole divinity, and dares to impiously divide the super-unified unity, it must be said that, just as the Good-natured Word Himself said, "I am good," ^B and as one of the God-inspired prophets sings, "Thy good Spirit," and again, "I am who I am," unless they say this is spoken of the entire divinity, and if they were to venture to circumscribe it to one part, how will they hear that which says, "Thus says the One who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty," and, "But Thou art the same," and, "The Spirit of truth who is, who proceeds from the Father"? And if they say that the entire Godhead is life, how is the sacred Word true which says, "As the Father raises up the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He will," and that the Spirit is the one who gives life? Now that the whole divinity also possesses dominion over all things, it is clear; and as for the second divine [nature] of the Father, or the Son's [divinity], it is not easy to relate, I think, in how many places of theology the Father and the Son are called Lord. But the Spirit is also Lord.

Concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the theology of the great Athanasius, distinct yet at unity. And that what the divine Scriptures say concerning the Father, they say the same things again concerning the Son and concerning the Holy Spirit, demonstrating one Godhead in the three. ^C

What the Father said in Isaiah, John asserts that the Son said. Paul, however, in the Acts of the Apostles, ascribes the very same things to the Holy Spirit. For thus we read written in Isaiah: "I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the house was full of His glory, and the seraphim stood round about Him, with six wings the one, and with six wings the other. And with two wings they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew, and they cried one to another, ^D and they said: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Sabaoth, all the earth is full of His glory." And after a little bit, the same: "And I heard the voice of the Lord saying: Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said: Behold I, send me. And He said to me: Go to the people and say to it: With the ear you shall hear, and you shall not understand, and seeing you shall see, and you shall not perceive."

^A For the heart of this people has waxed gross, and with their ears they have heard heavily, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them. But the evangelist John says: "For this reason they could not believe in Jesus, because Isaiah said of them: He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I should heal them." And Isaiah said these things because he saw His glory. But Paul attributes the oracle to the Holy Spirit, saying: ^B "Well did the Holy Spirit speak through the prophet Isaiah to your fathers: With the hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people has waxed gross," and the rest. Again, when the Son speaks to Peter about the Father: "Blessed are you, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but My Father who is in heaven." The same things He also says about Himself: "No one," He says, "knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Similarly, Paul also says concerning the Spirit: "But to us God has revealed it through His Spirit." Again, therefore, Paul having said: "God, having of old spoken in many parts and in many ways to the fathers by the prophets," and the rest, in another place says that the Son speaks, by saying: "Do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?" And the Son said the Spirit speaks in the apostles: ^C "When," He says, "they deliver you up, do not be anxious how or what you shall speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you shall speak. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." And of the Father and Himself, the Savior has said: "I and the Father will come, and we will make a dwelling with him," that is, with him who has become a temple for them and is worthy of receiving them. And Paul said of the Holy Spirit: "Or do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you?" And again: "And the Holy Spirit of God dwells in you." And in the Gospel the Savior says: ^D "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills." And Paul writes to the Corinthians: "The Spirit gives life." And again Paul teaches: "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, and the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings, and the same God." And David says that the Lord is the inheritance of the pious: "For the Lord," he says, "is the portion of my inheritance." And Jeremiah says of the Son: "He who formed all things is Himself the inheritance of Jacob." And Paul says of the Holy Spirit: "Who is the earnest of our inheritance." And Jeremiah says that the Lord led the people: "I did not say," he says, "Where is the Lord who brought us up out of Egypt, who led us in the desert?" But Paul, writing to the Corinthians, shows that Christ was the leader of the ancient people.

^A For he says, "They drank from the spiritual rock that followed them; but the rock was Christ." Isaiah attributes this to the Holy Spirit, saying, "He led them through the abyss, as a horse through the desert, and they did not weary; as cattle through the plain, and the Spirit descended from the Lord and led them." Paul, when he attributed to God the power to call, says, "For God, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace." Writing to the Romans, he also ascribes this to Christ, saying, "In whom are you also, called of Jesus Christ." And the Book of Acts assigns this to the Holy Spirit, saying, "Set apart for Me, for I have called them, Paul and Barnabas, to the work." At times the prophets speak in the person of the Father, as in the passage: "I swore once by My holy one; if I shall lie to David, his seed shall remain for ever," and what follows. At other times [they speak] in the person of the Son, as when Isaiah says: "The people shall know in that day that I myself, who spoke, am present." ^B At other times [they speak] in the person of the Holy Spirit, as when Paul writes to Timothy: "The Spirit expresses that in later times some will depart from the faith." And as when the prophet Agabus says: "Thus says the Holy Spirit," and so on. God fills all things: "Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord." Paul writes about the Son: "He who descended is the same who also ascended above all the heavens, that He might fill all things." David says the same about the Holy Spirit: "Where shall I go from Your Spirit?" By saying "Where shall I go from Your Spirit," he demonstrated that the Holy Spirit also fills all things. ^C

Further, regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the theology of the Great Basil, as distinguished yet united, from his discourse on faith.

When you have traversed all things, and have surveyed with your reason all that has been created, and have lifted your mind above these things for the contemplation of the divine nature, think of it as constant, immovable, unchangeable, free from passions, simple, incomposite, indivisible, inaccessible light, ineffable power, infinite magnitude, super-radiant glory, desirable goodness, immeasurable beauty—which strongly touches the wounded soul, but is impossible to declare worthily in words. There are the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the uncreated nature, the sovereign dignity, the natural goodness. The Father is the beginning of all things, the cause of existence ^D

^A to those that are, the root of the living. Whence proceeded the fountain of life, the wisdom, the power, the most absolute image of the invisible God, the Son begotten of the Father, who is the living Word, and who is God, and is with God; being, not having come to be; existing before the ages, not having been acquired later; Son, not a possession; Maker, not a thing made; Creator, not a creature; being all things that the Father is; Son, I say, and Father. Guard for me these properties. Remaining, therefore, in the state of being Son, He is all that the Father is, according to the voice of the Lord himself, saying: "All things that the Father hath are mine." For indeed, the image contains all things that are in the archetypal form. "For we beheld," says the evangelist, "his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten ^B from the Father"—that is, not that the wonders were given to him by gift and grace, but that the Son possesses the dignity of the paternal divinity from a communion according to nature. For to receive is common even to created things, but to have from nature is proper to the Begotten. As Son, therefore, He naturally possesses the things of the Father; and as Only-begotten, He comprises all things within Himself, with nothing divided toward another. From the very appellation of Son, therefore, we are taught that He is a partner in nature; not created by command, but shining forth from the essence without interval, joined to the Father without time, equal in goodness, equal in power, a partner in glory. For what else is He but a seal and an image, showing the Father entirely within Himself? But as for the things which are spoken to you after this, regarding His life in the body, as He was dispensing the salvation of men, which He manifested to us having appeared in the flesh—as saying that He is sent, and that He can do nothing of Himself, ^C and that He received a commandment, and such like—let not these provide you with pretexts for diminishing the divinity of the Only-begotten. For the condescension of the Mighty One to your weakness ought not to be a diminishing of the dignity of Him who is Almighty; but conceive of the nature in a manner worthy of God, and accept the humbler expressions as pertaining to the dispensation. If we were to wish to discuss these points with precision at present, we would, without reflection, add a long and indeed infinite multitude of arguments to our discourse. But let us return to the matter at hand. That the mind which has been able to purge itself from the passions of matter and to leave behind all created things, and like a fish to swim up ^D from the deep to the upper surface, having been in that purity wherein it was created, will see there the Holy Spirit, where the Son and the Father are, possessing also Himself all things conjointly and by nature: goodness, rectitude, sanctification, life. For, "Thy Spirit," He says, "is that good one"; and again, "A right Spirit"; and again, "The Holy Spirit." And the Apostle: "The law of the Spirit of life." None of these things is adventitious to Him, nor does anything result to Him later; but just as the power of heating cannot be separated from fire, nor splendor from light, so neither can sanctification, nor goodness, nor rectitude be separated from the Spirit. There, therefore, the Spirit resides, there in the blessed nature

not numbered among a multitude, but beheld in the Trinity; ^A proclaimed as a Monad, not circumscribed by groupings. For just as the Father is one and the Son is one, so also is the Holy Spirit. But the ministering spirits in every order display to us a multitude that is difficult to number. Do not, therefore, seek in the creation that which is above creation; do not bring down that which sanctifies to the level of those who are sanctified. This fills the angels, fills the archangels, sanctifies the powers, ^B and gives life to all things. This, being distributed to every creature, and perceived in one way by one and in another by another, is in no way diminished by those who partake of it. To all it gives the grace that is from itself; yet it is not consumed by those who receive it; rather, those who receive are filled, and it itself remains in need of nothing. And just as the sun, shining upon bodies and being perceived in various ways by them, is in no way diminished by those who receive it; so also the Spirit, providing to all the grace from itself, remains undiminished and indivisible. It illuminates all for the understanding of God, breathes into the prophets, makes legislators wise, perfects priests, strengthens kings, sets upright the just, adorns the temperate, ^C bestows the gifts of healings, brings the dead to life, looses those who are bound, and adopts as sons those who were alienated. These things it effects through the birth from above. If it takes a publican as a believer, it shows him to be an evangelist; if it finds one in a fisherman, it makes him a theologian; if it finds a persecutor repenting, it makes him an apostle of the Gentiles, a herald of the faith, a chosen vessel. Through it the weak become strong; the poor become rich; the unlearned in speech are wiser than the wise. Paul was weak, but because of the presence of the Spirit, the handkerchiefs from his skin ^D provided healing to those who received them. Peter also, although clothed in a body of weakness, through the grace of the Spirit dwelling in him, manifested a shadow that chased away the diseases of those who were oppressed. Peter and John were poor; for they had neither silver nor gold, but they bestowed health, which is more precious than much gold. For the lame man had received gold from many, since he was a beggar; but having received grace from Peter, he stopped begging, leaping like a deer and praising God. John did not know the wisdom of the world, but he uttered words by the power of the Spirit, to which no wisdom can look. This also stands in heaven, and has filled the earth, and is everywhere, and is nowhere contained. It dwells wholly in each, and is wholly with God. Not in the manner of a minister does it distribute gifts, but by its own authority it bestows the charisms. For it divides, he says, to each one individually, as it wills. It is sent indeed economically, but it works with its own power. Let us pray that it may be present in our souls, and that it may never at any time abandon us.

Still concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the theology of the great Basil, at once distinguished and united, from the letter to his brother Gregory concerning the difference of essence and hypostasis.

In the Holy Trinity, he who has perceived the Father has perceived him by himself, and has also accepted the Son in his mind. He who has received the Son has also received the Spirit, and has expressed in himself the faith of the three commingled into one, sequentially according to order, but joined according to nature.

^A And he who mentions the Spirit alone, includes in this confession also Him whose Spirit it is: for it is Christ’s; and also Him from whom it is: for it is from God, as the Apostle says. And just as in a chain he who touches one end draws the other end with it, so he who has drawn the Spirit, as the prophet says, has also drawn through him the Son and the Father. And if anyone should take the Son, he will have him on both sides, with his Father on one side, and his own Spirit trailing along on the other. For he who is always in the Father will not be able to be cut off from the Father, nor will the Son ever be separated from the Spirit, who works all things in him.

There is, therefore, no way to conceive of a severing or division, such that either the Father is thought of without the Son, or the Son without the Spirit; but there is in these an ineffable and incomprehensible union and division, with neither the difference of the hypostases destroying the continuity of the essence, nor the connection of the essence confounding the property of the persons. ^B Indeed, it is by a wonderful reason that in these there is both a combined distinction and a distinguished connection. But, so that the obscurity of the matter might be illustrated in some way, or rather that a certain shadowing of the truth might be applied, let us consider the example of the celestial bow, which they call the rainbow. For the splendors of all the colors in it appear both distinct, because they are bright, and joined, because the boundaries of the mixtures—by which the diversities of the colors are distinguished—lie hidden from our eyes, so that we cannot discern where the rutilant, or emerald, or glaucous glow of the light ends or begins. By this example of nature, reason teaches us not to waste our effort in searching out the arguments of dogmas when we fall into some difficult dispute and hesitate whether to assent to what is said. For just as in those things which are seen by the eyes, experience is superior to rational arguments, so in lofty dogmas, faith is superior to the understanding which is compared by arguments. ^C

From the same, tenth recapitulation of those to Amphilochius.

One God and Father, and one begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit. We announce each of the hypostases individually. And when it is necessary to enumerate, we do not do this so that we might be led by an unlearned enumeration to an understanding of a multiple divinity. For we do not enumerate by composing, making an increase from one to a multitude, and saying one, and two, and three; nor first, and second, and third. ^D "For I," he says, "am the first God, and I am hereafter." We have never to this day heard of a second God. For we adore God from God, and while confessing the property of the hypostasis, we assert a unique monarchy, and we do not sunder the reason of the divinity into a divided multitude, since one form, so to speak, is seen in God and Father and in the only-begotten Son, which is joined by the unchangeable bond of divinity.

^A For just as in this case, according to the property of persons, there is one and one, yet according to the commonness of nature both are one. How then, if there is one and one, are there not two gods? Because when a king and his image are spoken of, they are not two kings. For neither is the power divided, nor the kingdom partitioned. For just as the rule and authority over us is one, so also is the doxology from us one, and not many. For the honor of the image passes to the original. What the image is here by imitation, that the Son is there by nature. And just as in artificial objects the likeness is derived from the form, so in that divine and uncompounded nature, the unity exists from the communion of divinity. And the Holy Spirit is also one, himself also being declared singularly, joined to the Father through the one Son, and by himself completing the much-praised and blessed Trinity; whose conjunction with the Father and the Son clearly appears from the fact that it is not proclaimed among the multitude of created things, but singularly. For it is not one of the many, but is one in a certain singular way. For just as there is one Father and one Son, so also is there one Holy Spirit. So far, therefore, is he from created nature as is proper for that which is singular to be distant from those which are gathered and have a multitude; but he is so united to the Father and the Son, as unity is joined with unity. And not only is the society of nature declared by this, but also from the fact that he is said to be from God, not just as all things are from God, but because he proceeds from God, not as the Son by generation, but as the Spirit of his mouth. ^B By all means, do not understand the mouth as a member, nor the spirit as breath which is dissolved and dissipated, but—and the Spirit as a living essence, the mistress of sanctification—the sociability of which is indeed maintained. But it is a mouth worthy of God, and the Spirit is a living essence, and by these things it is declared, but the mode of his existence is kept secret as mysterious.

On the theology of the Great Gregory the Theologian, concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, at once distinguished and united, from the first discourse on the Son.

^C For us, the monarchy is what is honored. But it is not a monarchy which one person circumscribes; for it is possible for the one to be at variance with itself and thus become many; but it is a monarchy which the dignity of an equal nature, the same consent, the same motion, and the convergence into one of all things that flow therefrom, constitutes. This cannot happen in a created nature, so that it might differ in number and yet not have divided power. Therefore, the unity from the beginning, having moved into the binary number, came to a halt at the Trinity. And this for us is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The one indeed is the Begetter and the Sender—I speak, however, without passion, and without time, and without body; of the others, one is the offspring, ^D and the other is the emission, or I know not how one might...

^A call them, putting aside altogether those things that are visible.

And after a little: Therefore, standing within our own bounds, we introduce the unbegotten, and the begotten, and the One proceeding from the Father, as the same God and Word somewhere says. When, then, are these? They are above "when." But if one must say something even with the recklessness of youth: the Father is. But when was the Father not? When He was not. This, then, also applies to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. ^B Ask me again, and again I will answer you: when was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When does the Spirit proceed? When the Son has not proceeded, but has been begotten timelessly and in a way that surpasses reason, even if, wishing to avoid the implication of time, we are unable to set forth what is above time. For "when," and "after this," and "from the beginning," are not free from time, even if we are forced to use them; unless we understand the interval that extends along with eternal things as the "aeon," which is not moved, nor divided or measured by the course of the sun, which is what "time" is. How, then, are they not co-beginning, if they are co-eternal? Because they are from It, even if not after It. For that which is without beginning is also eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily without beginning, inasmuch as it is referred back to its beginning, ^C the Father; they are therefore not without beginning by reason of their Cause. And the cause is clearly not necessarily older than the things of which it is the cause; for the sun is not older than the light. And in a way they are without beginning in terms of time, even if you terrify the simpler-minded. For those from whom time originates are not under time.

From the discourse regarding dogma and the status of bishops.

The thing begotten from the Father could rightly be called the offspring of the One who begot it, and all the more because this is the nature of an offspring, to be the same as the One who begot it according to nature, just as this same Theologian says. ^D

We worship, therefore, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, distinguishing the properties, but uniting the godhead; and we neither contract the three into one, lest we suffer from the disease of Sabellius, nor do we divide them into three strange and foreign entities, lest we become frenzied like Arius. For what need is there, like a plant bent entirely to one side and curved strictly by force, to twist it to the contrary side and correct perversity with perversity, rather than drawing it to the middle, so that we may stand within the bounds of divine piety? When I say the middle, I mean the truth, toward which we do well to look alone, avoiding both the base contraction and the more absurd division; lest, if the discourse were contracted to one person, with the multiplicity of the godhead omitted, we should be left with mere empty names, and think the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the same, and define them as no more one than each is nothing. For they would cease to be what they are if they were confused and mingled with one another, and they would not be divided into three diverse, dissimilar, and mutually [alt-version omitted]

^A confused natures, as the madness of Arius desires, neither without principle nor without order; and as if they were adversaries, we would be inclined to assume them as gods, or fall into a Jewish disparagement, assigning the divinity only to the Unbegotten; or, on the contrary, we would be led to an equally evil opinion, positing three principles, three gods—which is the most absurd of all those things mentioned. For we must take care, lest in wanting to be too studious of the Father, we bring in a distinct nature for the Son, as though He were to be numbered among created things. Or do we desire to seem too loving of Christ, that we should not even preserve this for Him, that He is the Son? For whose Son would He be, if He were not referred to the Father as His cause? Nor should we diminish the dignity of the principle in the Father, which refers to Him as Father and begetter. For it would be a small and unworthy principle ^B if He were not the cause of the divinity viewed in the Son and the Spirit. Since we must preserve the One, and confess the three hypostases—or three persons—and each with its own property. Thus, therefore, we ought to confess three persons with each one's own property.

From the Discourse to Hero the Philosopher

I define our piety thus, that we know the Father as the one unbegotten God; and the Son as the one begotten Lord, who indeed is called Lord of Himself, but when He is named Lord together with the Father, He is called God by nature, though Lord as to His sovereignty. We know the one Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and as proceeding in the intellectual realm, which is known by those who have been instructed in the matters set before them. By the impious, indeed, it is opposed, but by those who are more spiritual, it is proclaimed. And we do not set the Father under a principle ^C, whence He might exist, nor do we join Him to such. The Son and the Spirit we do not deprive of their being without beginning, in that way which is their own. For although they are not without beginning in the sense of having no cause, it is remarkable that they are without beginning (that is, without cause), for they are from God, although not after God, as light is from the sun—without beginning in time, for He is not subject to time, so that the one begetting is not older than the begotten, or unequal in essence—nor do we hold three origins, that we might fall into the Hellenic polytheism, nor one, in the Jewish and narrow and envious sense, which would destroy the divinity itself in itself, which is what the previous generation did in leading the Son from the Father, and back into the Father—a failing which pleases the wise men of today, as if fearing that they might lead ^D Him out to an opposite, and not leave the Son as Unbegotten. For there is one Father, and not the Son as the Spirit; for there is one Only-Begotten, so that this also has the Monad of the Divinity, the one in unity, and not the other in passage. Truly, then, the Father is Father, and much more truly than those among us, because He is alone. For He is not in a way like bodies. And He is alone, for He is not with a consort. ^A ... God; so also here, even if the article is not added to the Son, the Son is not on that account a lesser God. For by saying God and God, he does not indicate something middle for us in this divinity, but rather the contrary. For by having said beforehand, "And the Word was God," lest anyone should think the divinity of the Son to be lesser, he immediately places also the signs of His genuine divinity, and His eternity. For this One, he says, was in the beginning with God; and he adds the creative power: "For all things," he says, "were made through Him, and without Him was made not even one thing which has been made." Which surely also His Father, through the prophets, says everywhere to be the sign of His essence. And the prophets unceasingly rotate this form of proof, and not simply, but while struggling against the opinion concerning idols: "For the gods," he says, "who did not make heaven and earth, let them perish." And again, "I by my hand have stretched out the heaven." And showing it to be an indicator of divinity, he places it everywhere. But the Evangelist himself was not satisfied even with these words, but also called Him Life and Light. If, therefore, He was always with the Father; if He Himself created all things; if He Himself brought forth all things and holds them together—for this was hinted at through the word "life"—if He illumines all things, who is so senseless to say that the Evangelist through these things has intended to introduce a lessening of divinity, through which it is especially possible to demonstrate equality and unchangeability? Let us not confuse the creation with the Creator, lest we also hear that "they worshipped the creation more than the Creator." ^B

From the same, from the interpretation of: "All things were made through Him."

^A things. And it is only Son; because he is Only-begotten. And it is only Son, for the Son is the prior. And the Father is whole, and [Father] of the whole. For that which is ours is obscured. And from the beginning, for it is not later. Truly Son is the Son, because it is only, and alone, and only, and only; for he is not also Father. And whole is the Son, and whole, and from the beginning. Never was the Son compelled [to be Son], for the Deity is not from change of mind, nor is the deification from advancement, so that at some time it might be lacking to the one to be Father, and to the other to be Son. Truly holy is the Spirit, the Holy [Spirit]. For there is no other such, nor in such a way, nor from addition is his sanctification, but he is self-holiness, nor is it more or ^B less, nor did it begin in time, nor will it be ending. For it is common to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, the not having been made, and the Deity; but to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, the being from the Father. But proper to the Father is the unbegottenness; to the Son, the begetting; to the Spirit, the procession. But if you inquire into the manner, what is to be gained for those who are known only to each other, and are attested to be known by one another, or even to us who will be illuminated by them hereafter? Become something of the things mentioned before, or such a one, and then you will know so much, as [much as] is known by them. But now, learn to know only this: a Monad in Trinity, and a Trinity in Monad ^C worshipped, having both a paradoxical division and union. Do not fear passions when you confess a generation; for the Divine is impassible, even if it has begotten. I am your guarantor for this, that it is divinely, but not humanly, for even his being is not human. But fear time and creation. For he is not God, if he has been made. Do not, while vainly attempting to champion God, abolish God, making a fellow-servant of him who is co-equal to God—who himself also frees you from slavery, if you genuinely confess his lordship. Do not fear the procession, for God is not under any necessity either to project or not to project, he who is in all things rich. But fear the alienation, and the standing threat, not to those who theologize, but to those who blaspheme the ^D Holy Spirit. Neither honor the Monarchy poorly by collapsing or cutting up the Godhead; nor be ashamed of the charge against the Trinity, until even another risks the straight path. For either you have resolved it, or you have been at a loss, or the one has shipwrecked along with his reasonings and [abandoned] the Godhead, but to you the Godhead has remained. And if the Word has been weakened, it is better to labor in one's reasonings with the guidance of the Spirit, than readily to commit impiety while pursuing ease.

From the Eirenic Discourse II

Trinity, as truly [there is] a Trinity, brothers. But a Trinity not...

^A a numbering of unequal things; for what hinders one from naming ten, or a hundred, or ten thousand, being compounded with such [numbers]? For the things being numbered are many, and more than these; but [the Trinity is] a collection of equals and those of equal honor, [the name] containing that which is united by nature, and not allowing things that cannot be dissolved to be dissipated by a dissolvable number. Thus we think, and thus we hold.

So that as to how these [persons] have relation and order toward one another, we confess that it is for the Trinity alone to know, and for those to whom the Trinity may reveal it, whether now or hereafter; but we ourselves know one and the same nature of the Godhead, recognized in the Unoriginate, and the Begotten, and the Proceeding, just as in us, in mind, and word, and spirit—insofar as it is possible to compare intellectual things to sensible ones, and the greatest things to the smallest. Since no image attains to the truth itself, [the Godhead] is always the same, always perfect, without quality, without quantity, timeless, uncreated, incomprehensible, never failing of itself, nor will it ever fail; it is lives and Life, lights and Light, goods and Good. Glories and Glory; the true and the Truth, and the Spirit of truth. Holy things and Holiness itself; each [being] God, if one considers them solely by separating in the mind those things which are inseparable. God [is] the Three, conceived together by the same motion and nature. It neither left anything behind itself, nor surpassed anything else. For there was neither anything behind it which it might have left, nor anything it might surpass. For there will not be anything of equal honor that it might receive along with itself. For how could any of the created, and servile, and participant, and circumscribed things reach the uncreated, and lordly, and participable, and infinite nature? ^B For some are entirely far off, while others approach somewhat, and this not by nature, but by participation. And when? When the serving [of God] is done well toward the Trinity, in a way that is above service, if indeed this very thing be not liberty, and kingship—to know lordship well, and not to confound the distinct things by a low-minded thought. But if serving is such, how great is the lordship of these [Three]? And if to know is blessedness, how great is that which is known? This is the great mystery that desires to be revealed to us: this is the faith into the Father and Son and Holy Spirit and the common name, and regeneration, denial of ungodliness, and confession of the Godhead. For this is the common name.

From the discourse on the birth of Christ.

From the discourse on the holy Lights.

^A When I say God, be illuminated by one light, and by three: three, as regards the properties—or, if one prefers to call them such, the hypostases, or persons; for we shall not wrangle over terms, provided the syllables lead to the same meaning—but one, as regards the definition of essence or divinity. For it is divided indivisibly, so to speak, and is conjoined dividedly. For the divinity is in the three, and the three are one, the [three] in whom the divinity is. Let us avoid both excesses and deficiencies, neither making the unity a confusion nor the division an alienation. For let both the compression of Sabellius and the division of Arius be far from us, as they are evils at opposite extremes, and equally impious. For why must one either compress God into one [person] wrongly, or cut Him into an inequality? But for us, there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things: [the words] "from whom," "through whom," and "in whom" do not cut the natures, lest the order of the prepositions and the names be changed; but they signify the distinct properties of one, unconfused nature. And this is clear from the fact that all things are referred back to One, as you will readily perceive if you attentively read what is written by the same Apostle elsewhere, when he says: "From him, and through him, and to him are all things; to him be the glory for the ages. Amen."

From the same discourse.

^B The Father is the Father, and without beginning—for He is not from anyone. The Son is the Son, and not without beginning, for He is from the Father. But if you take "beginning" to mean time, He too is without beginning; for He is the creator of times, not subject to time. The Holy Spirit is truly the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, but not in a material way—for He is not begotten, but proceeds; if indeed it is necessary to innovate something in terms for the sake of clarity—neither has the Father departed from His unbegotten state because He has begotten, nor the Son from His begetting because He is from the Unbegotten; for how could He? Nor does the Spirit pass over either into the Father, because He proceeds, or into the Son, because He is God, even if it does not seem so to the ungodly. For the property is immovable. For how could a property remain if it were shifting and changing? Those who posit the unbegotten and the begotten as natures of homonymous gods, perhaps would also argue that Adam and Seth are different in nature: the one because he was not from the work of flesh, for he was a molding, and the other because he was begotten from Adam and Eve—[that they are] different from one another according to nature. Therefore, God is one in three persons, and the three are one, as we have said.

From the hortatory discourse on receiving baptism.

^D This one divinity and power—which is found singularly in the three, and which encompasses the three—I bestow upon you as the companion and protector of your whole life.

^A

not to hear my laws and my words, which the Lord Almighty sent by His Spirit.” And Peter in the Acts said, “Men and brethren, it was necessary that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand.” And a little further on: “But the faithless mythology of the Tropici disagrees with the Scriptures, but agrees with the stupidity of the Ariomaniacs, and it is likely that they answer in this way for the sake of deceiving the more innocent. But thanks be to the Lord that, as you write, they have not succeeded in concealing themselves by their feigned opposition to the Arians; for indeed they were hated also by them, as being in truth fighters against the Spirit.” And a little further on: “Becoming dead, empty, and void of the Spirit.” For according to the blessed Apostle, being natural men, they could not receive the things of the Spirit of God, ^B because they examined them spiritually. But those who think the things of the truth examine all things, but they themselves are examined by no one, having within themselves the Lord, who reveals both Himself to them in the Spirit, and through Himself the Father. For the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught through Himself the Samaritan woman, and through her us, the perfection of the Holy Trinity being indivisible, and calling it one divinity: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.” For the Father seeks such to worship Him, because God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth. It is shown, therefore, from this that the Son Himself is the truth, as He Himself says, “I am the truth.” Concerning whom the prophet David also called out, saying, “Send forth your light and your truth.” But true worshippers worship the Father, yet in Spirit and in truth, confessing the Son, and in the Son the Spirit. As the Son is inseparable from the Father, the Truth itself bears witness, saying, “I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, whom the world cannot receive.” ^C

17. Again concerning the Holy Spirit, from the fourth oration of Basil the Great from the refutations against Eunomius. Just as the Son is second in order to the Father—for the Father is placed first in the enumeration: “Baptizing them,” He says, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—and furthermore in dignity; for the Son is from the Father, the Father is not from the Son, but by nature He is equal: “For I,” He says, “and the Father are one.” So also the Holy Spirit is second in order to the Son, as has been shown in the enumeration, and indeed also in dignity. For He is called the Spirit of the Son, as being bestowed through the Son. “For God,” He says, “sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts.” But the Son is not the Spirit’s. Yet by nature He is equal to both the Father and the Son. For those who have the same operation, have also the same nature. But Eunomius, attending to the order of the enumeration, declared Him to be of a third nature. ^D

^A And to the Father, I say, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, who are neither so separated from one another that they are divided by nature, nor so narrowed that they are circumscribed into one person. For the former is the madness of the Arians, the latter the impiety of the Sabellians. But He is more united than those that are utterly divided, and more abundant than those that are perfectly monadic. Anything with us is, and is called, a creature, even if one thing excels another in the proportion of its proximity to God.

^B Since these things are so, whoever has his heart toward the Lord, let him come with us, and let us worship the one Godhead in three, attributing nothing of lowliness to the inaccessible glory, but ever carrying the exaltations of the one God in the three upon our lips. For since one cannot properly speak even of the magnitude of the nature of Him who is infinite and boundless, how shall we add lowliness to Him? And whoever thinks differently about God, and therefore divides His most excellent essence into unequal natures, it is no wonder if he is cut by the divine sword, and his portion is set with the unbelievers, reaping bitter fruits of a perverse opinion both now and hereafter.

And as for the Father, what need is there to speak? His magnitude is conceded by all who are endowed with natural knowledge and common sense, even though He received the first fruits of ignominy, when He was divided by those ancient seekers of novelty into a creator of good and a creator of evil. ^C But concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit, observe how simply and briefly we shall discourse. If anyone has anything to say of these that is mutable or alterable, or measurable by time, or by manner, or by power, or by action, or that is not naturally good, or not self-moving, or not self-determining, or that is a servant, or a hymn-singer, or fearful, or being liberated, or not counted together, let him point it out; and we shall acquiesce, honoring them with the honor of fellow-servants, even if we are deprived of God. But if all that the Father has belongs to the Son, except for unbegottenness, and all that the Son has belongs to the Spirit, except for sonship, and for those things which are said concerning Him bodily for the sake of my human nature and my salvation, so that by taking what is mine He might bestow His own through the common union; cease your wandering. What then, O sophists, as His words fall, and why will you die, O house of Israel, that I should lament you with the words of Scripture?

^D For I indeed revere the appellations of the Word, so many, so sublime, and so great, which even the demons have feared. I revere also the equal dignity of the Spirit, but I fear the defined threat against those who blaspheme against Him. For that which would alienate the Spirit from that which He has assumed, so that by a new conjunction He might bestow upon us what is His own, is not theology, but raving, a squandering of empty words, and we by our own [lack of] knowledge...

are removed from the divinity. ^A And it must be observed here that, since the Lord is he against whom the Spirit is blasphemed, and he exists further as Lord, I cannot bear to walk in darkness after I have been enlightened, nor—out of the three in whose name I have been baptized—to call anyone lesser, so that I might truly be buried in the water, not initiated unto regeneration, but unto death.

I will speak boldly, O Holy Trinity, and may you forgive my arrogance: for the danger concerns my soul. I too am an image of God and of celestial glory, even though I am placed on earth. For this reason, I cannot be persuaded to believe that I have attained salvation through one who is of the same condition as I am. If the Holy Spirit is not God, let Him first be divinized, and then let Him divinize me, who am of equal honor. But now, what is this fraud regarding grace, or rather, regarding those who bestow grace—to believe in God, and yet end up an atheist? To confess one thing and to be taught another? What are these thefts of words, and deceits that lead by means of one question and confession to another? Woe to the radiance, if after the laver I am blackened; if I see those who have not yet been cleansed shining brighter; if I am cheated by the evil opinion of the baptizer; if I seek a better Spirit and do not find one. Give me a second baptism, and let me think ill of the first. Why do you begrudge me perfect regeneration? Why do you make me, who am a temple of the Spirit, ^B a dwelling-place of a created spirit, because [you think] He is God? Why do you honor one of my [virtues] and dishonor the other, badly dividing the divinity, so that you might cut off the grace from me, or rather, cut me off from the grace? Either honor the whole, O vain theologian, or despise the whole; so that, however impiously you may think, you might at least be consistent with yourself, and not judge a nature equally honored in an unequal way.

The culmination of the argument is this: ^C with the Seraphim, sing the praises of God, who gather the three holinesses into one lordship, and manifest as much of the first essence as their wings reveal to the studious. Be enlightened along with David, who says to the Light, "In thy light shall we see light," (Ps. XXXV, 10). This refers, of course, to the Son in the Spirit; what could be more radiant than this? Thunder along with John, the son of thunder; utter nothing humble or earthly about God, but something high and sublime, as one who knows that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and [He is] true God from the true Father, not a fellow-servant adorned merely with the title of Son, and [knows] the other Comforter, who is other than He who speaks—that is, the Word of God. And when you read, "I and the Father are one," (Joan. X, 30), contemplate the union of the essence; but when you hear, "We will come to Him, and will make our abode with him," (Joan. XIV, 23), understand the distinction of the persons; and when you hear the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, [understand] the three properties.

ἰδιότητας. ^A Be inspired by Luke, as you discourse on the Acts of the Apostles. Why do you set yourself alongside Ananias and Sapphira, those novel thieves, if it is true that stealing one’s own property is a new thing? And they were stealing not silver, nor anything else of little or minor value—like a tongue of gold, or a robe, or a didrachm, as that insatiable soldier once did—but rather they were stealing the Divinity Itself, and lying not to men, but to God, as you have heard. Why do you respect the authority of the Spirit toward me, in whom He wills, and when He wills, and as much as He, breathing, wills? For He descends upon Cornelius and his household before baptism; upon others, however, He descends through the apostles after baptism; so that, from both sources—from the things which He performs with the authority of a master and not as a servant, and from the things which He requires in the one who is to be initiated—He might bear witness to His own divinity.

^B With Paul, who was caught up to the third heaven, discuss theology—he who sometimes enumerates the three persons, and does so interchangeably, not keeping to any strict order, prefixing, inserting, or suffixing the same one. For what purpose does he manifest this? [To show] the equality of the nature. Sometimes he is mindful of all three, sometimes of one or another, as if the one left out followed as a matter of course. Sometimes he attributes to the Spirit the action of God, as if it mattered naught whether one says 'He' or 'Him.' Sometimes, however, instead of the Spirit, he brings forward Christ. And when he distinguishes the persons, he says: «One God, from whom are all things, and we in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.» But when he gathers together the one divinity: «For from Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things,» meaning through the Holy Spirit, as is shown in many places in Scripture. To Him be the glory unto the ages. Amen.

From the Discourse Against the Arians, and on Himself.

^C But we worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God the Father, God the Son, God—if you are not offended, [God] the Holy Spirit—one nature in three intellectual, perfect, and independently subsisting properties, divided by number, but indivisible in divinity. Yield these expressions to me, you who threaten me today, and let those who wish to do otherwise occupy themselves with the rest. The Father does not suffer loss in the Son, nor the Son in the Holy Spirit. Loss would occur if they were created; for what is created is not God. ^D I do not bear, you say, for perfection to be diminished: neither do I. One faith, one Lord, one baptism. If I should fall away from this, where shall I find another? What do you say, you who baptize or rebaptize? Is it possible to be spiritual without the Spirit? Or is he a partaker of the Spirit who does not worship the Spirit? Or does he worship the Spirit who is baptized in the name of a created and fellow-servant spirit? By no means. You will never say so much that I should depart from the true opinion. I will not deceive you, Father without beginning. I will not deceive you, only-begotten Word. I will not deceive you, Spirit...

I remember what I confessed, whom I deserted, and whom I followed. I will not commit such an act, that I, who have been taught the words of the faithful master, should become an unfaithful disciple; that I, having confessed the truth, should embrace a lie; that I, who came to become perfect, should return much more imperfect than I was when I arrived; that I, having been baptized that I might obtain life, should find death in the water, like those who die at the very moment of birth, joining their end with their beginning. Why do you make me happy and miserable at the same time? Luminous and obscure? Pious and impious? Or is it so that I might lose the hope of regeneration? But, to conclude the matter in a few words: be mindful of your confession. In whom have you been baptized? In the Father? Good, but that is still Jewish. In the Son? Rightly so; for this is no longer Jewish, yet it is not yet perfect. In the Holy Spirit? Extremely good; this is now perfect. But come, tell me, is it simply into these three, or is there some name common to them? Why not? And what is that? It is, clearly, the name of God. Believe in this common name, and progress, and reign. And from here you shall pass to the blessedness that is to come; which, as it seems to me, is nothing else than a more manifest comprehension of these very things.

From the discourse which he gave in the presence of the hundred and fifty bishops.

But to go through these individual points briefly: he who is, who is without beginning, and he who is the beginning, and he who is with the beginning, are one God. Neither is the nature of Him who is without beginning the fact that He is without beginning, or that He is unbegotten. For no nature is constituted by that which is not something, but by that which is something. It is the position of what is, not the subtraction of that which is not. Nor is the beginning separated from Him who is without beginning by the fact that it is a beginning. For the beginning is not a nature to Him, just as "without beginning" is not the nature of the Other. For these are not the nature regarding the nature. And that which is with the One who is without beginning and the One who is the beginning is nothing other than what those are. The name of Him who is without beginning is Father; of the beginning, Son; and of Him who is with the beginning, the Holy Spirit. But the nature of the three is one, God. The Father is the unity, from whom and to whom the others are referred, not as if they were to be merged into one person, but as if they were to be held together; neither time, nor will, nor power hindering this—things which are accustomed to be the causes why we are distracted into many things, and are alienated not only from others, but even from ourselves. But for those whose nature is simple, both to be the same and to be one are properly said of them.

^D Let us, therefore, bid farewell to the contentious inclinations and counter-balancings of speech toward either side, neither Sabellianizing against the Three in favor of the One, thus dissolving the distinction by a wicked contraction, nor Arianizing against the One in favor of the Three, thus overturning the Unity by a wicked division. For we do not seek to exchange evil for evil, but not to stray from the good. For that would be the sport of some wicked one, weighing our affairs poorly. But let us walk the middle and royal path, in which also the...

^A choir proceeds, as those who are diligent in such study assert: we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we say that their nature and dignity are one and the same. In these, both baptism possesses its perfection, in names and in realities. For you, who are initiated, cast off, as you know, the impiety of those who wish the Son or the Spirit to be God, and who commingle and confuse the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and you confess a distinct and yet one divinity. Whom, therefore, we acknowledge and adore as one in nature, we distinguish into three hypostases, or persons, if that word pleases anyone more. For those who contend with one another about such words ought not to behave unseemly, as though piety consisted in words and not in the realities themselves. For what do you say, you who bring forward three hypostases? Do you suppose there to be three natures? Answer. I know that you would ^B protest if anyone suspected this of you. But what of you, who bring forward persons: do you fashion some composite something, endowed with three persons, and altogether presenting the face of a man? Away with that! I know that you, too, would greatly protest; for there is no such person of God. What, then, do your hypostases mean to you, or your persons? For I will ask in return: Is it that they are three, not divided by nature, but distinguished by properties? Most excellent. How could some agree more with each other and say the same thing than those who think thus, even if they differ in words and terminology? Do you see what kind of conciliator I show myself to you, leading the mind away from the letter to the reality, just as I do with the Old and the New Testament?

But we must return again to the same subject.

From the discourse concerning the Holy Spirit.

^A I was looking for an image of such a great matter, I found nothing of those things which are set below, to which the divine nature could properly be compared; for although something might appear similar to it in some part, it is for the greater part dissimilar, and drags me down along with the example itself. I considered the eye (for so I call the source of a fountain) and the fountain, and the river, and I reflected whether the Father might correspond to the first, the Son to the second, and the Holy Spirit to the third in proportion. For these are separated neither by time, nor are they broken off from one another in continuity, and they seem somehow to be severed by three properties. But I feared, first, to admit a certain state of deity which has no stability; and second, lest the one in number ^B might be introduced through the imagination. For the eye, and the fountain, and the river are one in number, being fashioned in different ways. Again, I reflected upon the sun, and the ray, and the light. But even here there was fear: first, lest some composition might be conceived of the uncompounded nature, just as of the sun and the things in the sun; and second, lest we make the Father to be essence, but the others not to be subsistent, but rather make them faculties of God existing within, not subsisting. For neither is the ray, nor the light, another sun, but they are certain solar effluences, and essential qualities; and at the same time we would grant to God both to be and not to be in these, as far as the example goes, which is more absurd than the things already mentioned.

Item concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, bishop, distinct yet united, from the discourse against Ablabius.

Since we confess the Father to be God, the Son to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God, ^C why do we not say three gods, but one God? First, that we may answer what is at hand, so we do not introduce a manifold crowd of gods as fashioned by the Greeks. Then, if something more elegant and more recondite must be said, since this name "God" signifies an action—for it is derived from the verb that runs about everywhere, or from the verb that sees all things, or from the verb that burns up and destroys wickedness. Just as, therefore, each person has such an action perfected, so he obtains the name signifying that action, so that he both is and is called God. Again, just as there is one and unchangeable action in the three, so also there is one divinity, and one God in three persons. But, you will say, Peter, and Paul, and John, ^D being three persons, are also called three men. I answer, first, that we use the name "man" incorrectly here when we call them three men. For both "man" and "humanity" signify a universal, which embraces particulars. Then I add this, that this name explains the nature of a thing. But in the Trinity, which is uncreated, no name is to be found which declares its nature. But why, when we call the individual persons God, do we not also call their individuals divinity? Because just as it is allowed that "man" and "humanity" are spoken of equally regarding all, they are not, however, spoken of equally regarding

^A each of them, since each of them is a distinct executor. Yet we speak of the divinity of the Father, and the divinity of the Son, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, just as we speak of the humanity of Socrates, and substance, and nature, and whatever else is common to the persons.

From the same, from the discourse to the monk Evagrius on Divinity

Just as between a thought and the mind and the soul no division or section can be found, so too can no section or division be conceived between the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father. For the nature of intelligible and divine things is indivisible.

From the same discourse

Just as the rays of solar light, having by nature an indivisible relationship with one another, are neither separated from the light nor cut off from each other, and send the grace of the light down to us; in the same way the Son and the Holy Spirit, the twin rays of the Father, are joined with the Father themselves, and send down to us the light of truth. And just as two rivers flow from a single spring of water, and although in their position the channels are divided, they possess one and the same quality of moisture, and are neither cut off from the spring, nor are they joined to one another through it, even if each flows in its own particular way; in the same way, the first cause, the Father, the spring of life, sends down to us a twofold grace of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor does He Himself suffer any harm in His own essence. For no diminution of His perfection follows due to their coming to us; and while they proceed as far as us, they are nevertheless not separated from the Father.

Again, concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, a theology at once distinct and united. An exposition of faith by Saint Cyril

^C We believe in one God the Father, without beginning, and unbegotten, who is always Father, and did not acquire this later. For there was not a time when He was not, but from eternity He was Father. Nor did the Son come to be first and then the Father, according to the succession observed in bodies, but from the moment He is, He is and is called Father.

We believe also in one Son, coeternal with Him who begat Him, not having received a beginning of being, but always existing, and existing with the Father. For as long as there is a Father, from Him there is a Son. For these names and the realities themselves are so joined to one another that they cannot be separated. If, however, the Son was not always, but there was a time when He was not, then neither was the Father always; for from the time He begat, He has this name. But if God is always Father—for it is blasphemous to make the creator of times subject to time, and to declare this generation, which is timeless and exists above time, to be secondary to an interval of time—then the Son, having been begotten ineffably from the Father, is always ^D

^A existing, and is recognized along with the Father. "In the beginning," he says, "was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God." But what is it that is in the beginning, and yet at some time was not? For he did not say, "In the beginning he was made," but, "In the beginning he was." If we strive with our reasoning to transcend the "was," we shall not be able to reach beyond the beginning. All things are secondary to the One who is in the beginning and who is with God—both time, and the aeon, and any other temporal interval that might be conceived. If the Son were not always with God the Father, but had come to be at some later time, it would be necessary for time and the aeon to intervene between the Father and the Son. But if anyone were to grant this, the creature would be found to pre-exist the Creator. ^B "For all things," says the Evangelist, "were made through the Son, and without him not even one thing was made." And among all things is the aeon, or time. And the blessed Paul also says, "In these last days he has spoken to us in the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages." But if the ages are the works of the Son, they do not pre-exist their maker. And if the ages do not pre-exist, it is evident that neither does time, which days and nights create and measure. Days and nights are produced by the rising and setting of light. But the light was created after the heaven, the earth, and the air. And all these things, and whatever is in them, God the Word fashioned by the good pleasure of the Father.

Since, therefore, times and ages, together with all other things, were made by the Word, there could be nothing ^C between the Father and the Son, but God the Father is always, and the Son is always with the Father. Wherefore the Evangelist also cries out, "In the beginning was the Word." And the apostle Paul says, "As being the radiance of his glory and the stamp of his substance"; and elsewhere, "Who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal to God." And neither he, when he uses "was," nor the other, when he uses "is" or "being," implies a beginning, since they are proclaiming the One who always is; for which reason, after a little while, the Evangelist says, "In him was life, and the life was the light ^D of men"; and again, "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world." And again, "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father"; and in the Epistle, "Who," he says, "was from the beginning." Thus were those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word taught by the divine Spirit to theologize concerning the only-begotten Word of God. Wherefore they did not rank the Creator among the things that were created, nor did they rank the Maker with the things made; nowhere did they call the genuine Son of God a creature; nowhere did they couple the phrase "he was made" with the divinity. But these phrases— "In

"In ^A principio erat Verbum,"—they do not say, "In the beginning the Word was made," but rather, "As being the radiance of glory and the stamp of his essence," and again, "Who existing in the form of God," not "becoming in the form of God," but "existing in the form of God." And elsewhere, "Who is the image of the invisible God." He did not say, "Who became the image of the invisible God," but "Who is."

Thus, everywhere in theology, "was," and "being," and "existing," and "is" are linked together. In this way, when God was speaking to the great Moses, he called himself thus: "I," he says, "am who am." And again, "Thus," he says, "you shall say to the sons of Israel: 'He who is' has sent me to you." That these words testify to the Son, even the very champions of the execrable impiety themselves concede, who indeed posit an inseparable Father, but place the Son as a mediator between the Father and created things, and say that he appeared and spoke to the patriarchs and prophets. But God the Word himself teaches this point to us clearly through the prophet Jeremiah, when he says, "In those days and in that time, I will make a new covenant for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the ^B day that I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." Let us ask, therefore, who gave us this new covenant? Is it not manifest to all that the Lord Christ is the giver of this? For he himself cries out in the holy Gospels: "It was said to the ancients: You shall not kill. But I say to you: Everyone who is angry with his brother without cause shall be liable to judgment. It was said to the ancients: You shall not swear falsely. But I say to you: Do not swear at all." And he sets forth other things similarly, that it was said indeed such-and-such, but I say this, legislating in this way, not overturning and abolishing the established law, but establishing and confirming it, and teaching in what manner it must be kept. Therefore, the Lord Christ gave us the New Covenant; but he who gave this also gave the Old to Israel after their liberation from Egypt. And he who gave that, and who delivered ^C the people from Egyptian servitude, is clearly the one who himself sent Moses to Pharaoh; he it is who said: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: 'He who is' has sent me to you." And the prophet Jeremiah makes this clear elsewhere too: "This," he says, "is our God; no other shall be reckoned in comparison with him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel who is beloved by him. After this he was seen on the earth, and conversed with men."

Beginning from what is later, let us investigate the prophetic meaning. Who is he who was seen on the earth, and conversed with men? It is surely God the Word, as is patent to all who are possessed of sound mind, who assumed our nature, the one who did not count the being equal to God as a prize, but emptied himself; and taking the form of a servant...

^A This one, therefore, gave the way of knowledge to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved by him, having proclaimed the ancient law in the wilderness through Moses. But he who had given that law to Moses, speaking to him, said: “Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel: ‘He Who Is’ has sent me to you.” For this reason, the prophet also cried out: “This is our God; no other shall be accounted relative to him,” ^B testifying to him not as one who is lesser, but as one to whom *no one* can be compared. Do you see how the prophetic proclamations harmonize with the evangelical teachings? Moses preaches “He Who Is,” or rather, God the Word himself says of himself “He Who Is.” He also adds “being,” which has the same power as “He Who Is.” He says “He Who Is,” which is equivalent to those in meaning. Likewise, John the Theologian also frequently sows “He Who Is” throughout the history of the Gospels. ^C And he adorns the prologue itself with these words, not once, nor twice, nor thrice, but frequently proclaiming “was.” For, he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God.” We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the upright, the sovereign, the good, the consolation, the one who proceeded from God, not begotten—for there is only one Only-Begotten—nor yet created. For we find nowhere in Holy Scripture that he is numbered among the creation, but he is ranked with the Father and the Son. ^D We have heard that he proceeds from the Father, and we do not curiously investigate *how* he proceeds, but we rest content with the limits set for us by the theologians and blessed men.

For we have also been taught by our Savior Jesus Christ himself that the Holy Spirit completes the Trinity. “Go, therefore,” he says, “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [94, A] He who is numbered with the Father and the Son is certainly superior to all created things; for this reason, the blessed Paul also habitually proclaims it together with the Father and the Son. “The grace,” he says, “of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” And again: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who works all in all.” And preaching his power, he cried out: “But all these works one and the same Spirit, distributing to each particularly as he wills.” ^B For he is not commanded, but he distributes the gifts to the believers as he wills. For through him we have received the remission of sins; through him we have attained freedom; through him we have enjoyed the grace of adoption. “For we have not received the spirit of bondage,” says Paul, “again to fear, but we have received the Spirit of adoption of sons, in whom we cry: Abba,”

Father.” And elsewhere, “For the law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death.” And from another passage, “The Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” ^B Now he who makes others free does not himself serve. For how could he have given to his fellow-servants what he himself does not possess, what he cannot attain, and what he would indeed wish to enjoy, but cannot? But he who bestows liberty upon those who believe, and makes those who are serving free—he, clearly, does not serve, but rules, and by sovereign right grants liberty to whom he wills. Wherefore also the blessed Paul said, “All these things works one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one specifically as he wills.” For this reason, the prophet in the Old Testament also, signifying his power, cried out: “The Lord has sent me, and his Spirit.” And God, accusing the Jews, says: “You have made a counsel, but not through me, and covenants, but not by my Spirit,” declaring the Holy Spirit to be a partner in dominion. And in another place: “For why,” he says, “am I with you? And my Spirit has stood in the midst of you.” And Job, believing him to be the creator and sovereign, and not a minister or a created thing, says: “The divine Spirit is that which has made me, and the breath of the Almighty is that which teaches me.” But if he fashioned the human nature, he possesses the same essence as the Father and the Son. For when God was making man, he said: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” Now, when the image is one, it is clear that their essence is also one.

Item concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct and united theology of Saint Maximus.

One God, Father of one Son, and fountain of one Holy Spirit. A Monad without confusion, and an indivisible Trinity. A Mind without beginning, alone of the alone, essentially the Begetter of the unbegotten Word, and the fountain of the alone eternal life of the Holy Spirit.

Of the Same.

One God, because one divinity is without beginning, and simple, and transcending essence, and indivisible, and inseparable. The same is the Monad and the Trinity. The entire Monad is the same, and the entire Trinity is the same. The Monad is entire according to essence, and the Trinity is entire according to the persons. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the Divinity itself. And in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit is the Divinity itself. ^D It is entirely in the entire Father, and the Father is entire in it entirely. And it is entirely in the entire Son, and the Son is entire in it entirely. And it is entirely in the entire Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is entire in it entirely. For the Divinity is not in the Father by part, nor is the Father God by part; nor is the Divinity in the Son by part, nor is the Son God by part; nor is the Divinity in the Holy Spirit by part, nor is the Holy Spirit God by part. For the Divinity can neither be divided, nor is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit an imperfect God.

^A But it is the whole, the same, perfect, perfectly in the perfect Father; and the whole, perfect, perfectly, is the same in the perfect Son; and the whole, perfect, perfectly, is the same in the perfect Holy Spirit. For the Father is the whole in the whole Son and in the Holy Spirit perfectly; and the Son is the whole in the whole Father and in the Holy Spirit perfectly; and the Holy Spirit is the whole in the whole Father and in the Son perfectly. For there is one and the same essence, and power, and operation of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with none of them separated from the other, nor even mentally conceived as being so.

Of the Same.

One is the entity and super-essential good, the Holy tri-hypostatic unity: Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; an infinite conjunction of three infinites, which possesses the reason of its being—and how, and what, and where it is—altogether inaccessible to existing things. ^B For it escapes every conception of those who conceive it, departing in no way from its natural, hidden, interior source, and it infinitely transcends the knowledge of all knowledges.

Of the Same.

It is necessary to know one nature and power of the Divinity—which is to say, one God—contemplated in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; insofar as it alone is the uncaused mind existing essentially; ^C the begetter of the Word who alone exists startingly by essence and is without beginning; and the wellspring of the Holy Spirit, who alone exists essentially as eternal life. There is a Trinity in unity, and a unity in Trinity; yet the one is not in the other in such a way that the Trinity is an accident in the unity, as if in an essence, or conversely that the unity is an accident in the Trinity. For it is devoid of quality. Nor is it as if one thing were other than another, since the unity does not differ from the Trinity by diversity of nature, being a simple and one nature. ^D Nor is one subordinate to another; for the Trinity is not distinguished from the unity, nor the unity from the Trinity, by a submission of power; nor does the unity differ from the Trinity as some common thing, or universal genus, and something grasped by thought alone, which is distinct from its parts and forms, since it is an essence which is properly, by itself, and by power, truly self-sufficient. Nor is it as one through another; for it is not joined by any intermediate habit, as a cause with that of which it is the cause—that which is altogether the same and lacks any such habit. Nor is it as one from another; for the Trinity is not from the unity by way of addition or procession, since it is unbegotten and exists by itself. But it is such that it is one and the same thing, truly called and understood both as unity and as Trinity: as unity indeed by the reason of its essence, but as Trinity by the mode in which it exists. The whole unity is the same, distinct by persons; and the whole Trinity is the same, not confused by unity. Thus, let neither a multitude of gods be introduced by division, nor the Divinity be overthrown by confusion.

Of the Same.

The creative essence of the Holy Trinity alone is simple, uniform, needing nothing, and immutable. But all created things consist of essence and accident, and are always in need of the divine pro-

providence, seeing that they are not free from mutations. Therefore, one must not speak of an accident in God, nor of a quality. For these belong to composite and mutable things. But everything that God has, He has by nature, and it is not acquired. Do not seek for habits and aptitudes in the simple and infinite essence of the holy Trinity, lest you imagine it to be composite, like created things. ^A

*By the same.* From existing things we know their cause and author. And from the difference among existing things we learn of the Wisdom subsisting in the One who is, [namely] the Son; and from the natural movement of these things we understand the Life subsisting in the One who is, that power from which things derive life, namely, the Holy Spirit. ^B

*By the same, from the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer.* The name of God and the Father subsisting by essence is the only-begotten Son; and the kingdom of God and the Father subsisting by essence is the Holy Spirit. For what Matthew here calls "kingdom," another evangelist called the Holy Spirit in another place, saying, "May Thy Holy Spirit come and cleanse us." For the Father does not have an accidental name, nor do we think of the kingdom in Him as some sort of attributed dignity. For He never began to be, such that He might also begin to be Father or King. But since He always is, He is also always Father and King. Nor did He have a beginning at all, so that He might either be, or be Father and King. But if He is always so, that He is always both Father and King, then the Son and the Holy Spirit also always subsist by essence together with the Father, since they are both from Him and in Him naturally, above cause and reason, and not existing after Him through a cause. For the relationship possesses a power of mutual indication, which does not permit the things of which it is a relationship to be considered apart from one another. ^C

*By the same.* If the Word precedes the creation of things, there neither was, nor is, nor will be anything more ancient than the Word. But the Word is not without mind, nor devoid of life, but possesses both mind and life—mind as the Father who generates and subsists by essence, and life as the Holy Spirit who subsists by essence. ^D

*Item: Regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the theology of the distinction and unity of the Divinity at once. From Damascene, Chapter 8.* We believe, therefore, in one God, one principle, without beginning, uncreated, unbegotten, knowing neither destruction nor death, eternal, immense, uncircumscribed, defined by no limits, of infinite power, simple, incomposite, incorporeal, free from flux, passion, and every mutation and alteration, invisible, the fountain of all goodness and justice, an intellectual and inaccessible light, a power grasped by no measure, and measured only by His own will (for He can do whatever He wills), the creator of all things, as well

as the maintainer of things visible and invisible; the preserver of all, providing for all, containing and ruling all, holding an everlasting and immortal kingdom over all things; having nothing contrary to Himself, filling all things, contained by nothing, but rather Herself containing all things, sustaining and preceding them; ^A pervading all essences without pollution, and beyond all things, and exempted from every essence, as being supersubstantial and existing beyond all things, super-divine, super-good, super-full; defining all principles and orders, and established above every principle and order, beyond essence, and life, and reason, and thought; being self-light, self-goodness, self-life, self-essence, as not having being from another, nor anything of which He consists; but being Herself the source of being to those that are; of life to those that live; of reason to those that partake of reason; the cause of all good things to all; knowing all things before they come to be; one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one operation, one principle, one authority, one lordship, one kingdom, yet known and adored in three perfect persons with one adoration, believed in and worshipped by every rational creature; things which are united without confusion and commingled without division—which is indeed a mystery. Into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whose name also we have been baptized. For so the Lord commanded the apostles to baptize: "Baptizing them," He says, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." ^B

Into one Father, the principle and cause of all; begotten of none; but existing alone as uncaused and unbegotten; the maker of all things; but by nature the Father of only one, His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the producer of the all-holy Spirit. And into one Son of God, the only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ; begotten of the Father before all ages; light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; whom, when we say He is before all ages, we show that His generation suffers neither time nor beginning; for the Son of God was not brought from non-existence into existence—the radiance of the glory, the stamp of the Father's subsistence, the living wisdom and power, the Word that is subsistent, the substantial, perfect, and living image of the invisible God; but He was always with the Father, and in Him, eternally and without beginning begotten of Him. For there was never a time when the Father was, and the Son was not; ^C but at the same time Father, at the same time Son, who was begotten of Him. For the Father could not be called such if He lacked a Son. For if He ever lacked a Son, He was certainly not a Father. And if He had a Son afterward, He also became a Father afterward, not being a Father before this, and changed from not being a Father into becoming a Father; which is more grievous than any blasphemy. For it is impossible to say that God is destitute of natural fruit-

- ^A fulness. Fecundity, moreover, consists in this, that one should bring forth from oneself—that is, from one’s own substance—an offspring similar to oneself by nature.

*Distinctions between divine generation and creation.*

Therefore, when the generation of the Son is discussed, it is impious to say that time intervened, or to constitute the Son’s existence as being after the Father. For we profess the generation of the Son to be out of Him, that is, out of the Father’s nature. And unless we grant that the Son from the beginning co-existed with the Father (by whom He was begotten), we introduce a mutation of the Father’s substance; for He who was not a Father subsequently became a Father. For created things, even if they were fashioned later, did not exist out of the substance of God; but were brought forth by His will and power in order that they might be. Nor does mutation fall into God’s nature on that account: for generation consists in this, that an offspring of the same substance as the begetter is produced from the substance of the begetter; but creation and making require only this, that the thing being created or made should come to be from without, and not from the substance of the creator or maker, and should be entirely dissimilar in essence.

^B Wherefore in God, who alone is free from all suffering, alteration, and mutation, and who always remains in the same state, both generation and creation are free from passion. For since He is neither passible nor of a fluxional nature—being, indeed, simple and not composite—He is not of a nature to undergo passion or flux, whether in begetting or in creating, nor does He require any cooperation. Rather, generation is without beginning and eternal, being a work of nature and proceeding from His own substance, so that the begetter may not undergo mutation, and so that there may not be a God who is first and a God who is second, or any addition received. But creation, with God, being a work of the will, is not co-eternal with God. For that which is brought from non-being into being is not of a nature to be co-eternal with Him who is without beginning and always is. ^C Just as, therefore, man and God do not act in the same way—for man brings nothing out of non-being into being, but makes whatever he makes out of pre-existing and subject matter, and not only willing it, but also pre-conceiving it, and fashioning it in his mind, and then working with his hands, and undergoing labor and toil, and often failing in his design when it does not result as he wills; whereas God, by will alone, brought all things out of non-being into being—so neither does God beget in the same way as man. For God, being timeless, and without beginning, and impassible, and immutable, ^D and incorporeal, and alone, and unending, begets timelessly, and without beginning, and impassibly, and immutably, and without union; and His incomprehensible generation has neither beginning nor end.

The ever-existing God, therefore, begets His own Word, being perfect, without beginning, and without end, so that God may not beget in time, He who possesses a nature and existence superior to all time, in

^A a manner of generation. But it is clear that man begets in a different way, as he is subject to generation, corruption, flux, and multiplication, and is clothed in flesh, and possesses both male and female in his nature; for the male requires the help of the female. But may He who is beyond all things, and who transcends every thought and apprehension, be merciful to us.

The holy, catholic, and apostolic Church therefore teaches that the Father, and together with Him His only-begotten Son, born of Him, are without time, without flux, without passion, and incomprehensibly, as only the God of all knows. Just as there is fire at the same time as the light that comes from it—not that the fire is first, and after that the light, but they are simultaneous—and just as the light, being always begotten from the fire, is always in it, and is in no way separated from it, so also is the Son born of the Father, and is not in the least separated from Him, but is always in Him. But the light, while being begotten of the fire inseparably and remaining always in it, does not have an individual subsistence apart from the fire; for it is a natural quality of the fire. But the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father inseparably and indivisibly, and remaining always in Him, has an individual subsistence ^B apart from that of the Father.

The Word, therefore, and the radiance are so called, because He was begotten of the Father without any combination, without passion, without time, without flux, and inseparably. And He is called Son, and the stamp of the Father’s subsistence, because He is perfect, and subsistent, and in all things like unto the Father, except for being unbegotten. And He is called Only-Begotten, because He alone was begotten of the Father alone. For no other generation can be compared to the generation of the Son of God. Nor, indeed, is there any other Son of God. For even if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet it is not by way of generation, but by way of procession. This is another mode of existence, altogether incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Therefore, everything that the Father has is His, except for being unbegotten, which does not signify a difference in essence, nor a dignity, but a mode of existence; just as Adam is unbegotten—for he is a formation of God—and Seth is begotten, for he is the son of Adam; and Eve, who proceeded from the rib of Adam, was not begotten: yet they do not differ from one another in nature—for they are all human beings—but in the mode of their existence.

^C It is necessary to know that *ageneton* (ἀγένητον), written with a single nu, signifies the uncreated, that is, that which has not been made; but *agenneton* (ἀγέννητον), written with double nu, denotes that which has not been begotten. According to the first meaning, therefore, essence differs from essence; for one essence is uncreated, or *ageneton* (with a single nu), and another is created or *genete* (γενητή). But according to the second meaning, ^D

there is no difference in essence introduced. For the first individual of the species of any living creature is ingenerate, but not uncreated—that is, it is not completely without beginning or production. For from the Creator, by His Word, it was brought into existence. It was not unbegotten; since there was no other individual of the same species before it, from which it could be begotten.

^A As far as the first meaning is concerned, the phrase "unbegotten" applies solely to the three divine Persons of the holy Deity. For they are of the same substance and are uncreated. But as far as the second meaning is concerned, it does not apply in the same way; for the Father alone is ingenerate, since He is not of another's substance. And the Son alone is begotten, for He is of the Father’s substance, eternally and timelessly begotten. And the Holy Spirit alone proceeds, from the Father’s substance—not by generation, but by procession. For thus the divine Scripture teaches us, although the mode of generation and procession can in no way be comprehended by the mind.

It is also worth knowing that the terms "fatherhood," "sonship," and "procession" were not transferred by us to the blessed Deity, but rather communicated to us from thence, as the divine Apostle says: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth [is named]."

^B

TITULUS VI. Concerning the divine creation.

[From the same oration.] In this way, then, the intelligible world was constituted for Him, if one may philosophize while weighing such great things with a small discourse. But since the first things fared well for Him, He conceived of a second world, consisting of matter and visible, which is concrete and formed from heaven and earth and those things which are in the midst; laudable indeed for the beauty of each single thing, but more laudable for the concinnity and concordance by which ^D both one with another, and all with all, are well joined together and alternately congruent, concurring toward the perfection of one world. By this He showed that it was in His power not only to effect a nature related to Himself, but also to constitute one altogether foreign and strange. For as those intelligent natures, which can be perceived by the mind alone, are in a way similar and related to His amplitude, so those things which are exposed to the senses are altogether alien and remote from it, and among these, those especially which lack soul and motion.

the superessential divine essence, free from these things? But it is clear to most that all creation is contained by these, and that every creature, according to its own nature, is subject to corruption. ^B

*On the Holy Spirit. That the generation and procession in God are distinguished is unknown to us.* In the same way, we believe also in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son; who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, as being consubstantial and co-eternal; the Spirit of Christ, the upright, the sovereign, the fountain of wisdom, of life, and of sanctification; existing as God, and called God, together with the Father and the Son; uncreated, full, creator, pantocrator, all-creating, omnipotent, of infinite power, governing all creation, not governed by any; making others gods, but not becoming God; filling, not filled; partaken of, not partaking; sanctifying, not sanctified; the Paraclete, as receiving the supplications of all; in all things like unto the Father and the Son; proceeding from the Father, and imparted through the Son, and partaken of by all creation; and by Himself creating, and giving essence to all things, and sanctifying, and sustaining; subsistent, existing in His own hypostasis, inseparable and never departing from the Father and the Son, and having all things that the Father and the Son have, except for unbegottenness and begottenness. For the Father is anaitios (without cause) and unbegotten; for He is not from anyone; for He has His being from Himself, and whatever He has, He does not have from another; but He Himself is rather the principle and cause of being and of how to be, naturally, to all things. The Son is from the Father by way of generation; but the Holy Spirit is Himself also from the Father, but not by way of generation, but by way of procession. And that there is a difference between generation and procession, we have learned; but what the mode of the difference is, we do not know at all. Yet at the same time, the Son’s generation from the Father and the Holy Spirit’s procession exist. Everything, therefore, that the Son has, and the Spirit ^C has, they have from the Father, and even their being; and if the Father is not, neither is the Son, nor the Spirit; and if the Father did not have something, neither would the Son have it, nor the Spirit; and it is through the Father—that is, because the Father is existing—that the Son and the Spirit exist; and it is through the Father that the Son and the Spirit have all things which they have—that is, because the Father has them, except for unbegottenness, and begottenness, and procession. For it is in these alone, the characteristic properties, that the holy three hypostases differ from one another; not in essence, but being divided indivisibly by the characteristic of their own hypostasis.

We say, moreover, that each of the three has a perfect hypostasis, so that we may not recognize one composite nature out of three imperfect ones; but in three perfect hypostases

^A we recognize one simple substance and essence, superior to and prior to all perfection. For everything composed of imperfect things is entirely composite. And it is impossible for a composition to come into being from perfect hypostases. Whence we do not even say the species is from the hypostases, but rather in the hypostases. And we called them imperfect, those which do not preserve the species of the thing that is made from them. For stone, wood, and iron are each perfect in themselves according to their own nature; but with respect to the building constructed from them, each is imperfect; for not one of them is, by itself, a house.

Therefore, we profess the persons to be perfect, ^B lest we conceive of composition in the divine nature. For composition is the mother of discord. But again, we say that the three persons are in one another, so that we may not introduce a multitude and crowd of gods. Through the three hypostases [we signify] that which is uncompounded and unconfused; but through the consubstantiality, and the fact that the hypostases are in one another, and the identity of the will, and of the operation, and of the power, and of the authority, and of the movement—so to speak—we recognize the indivisible and [the fact of] being one God. For there is truly one God: God, the Word, and His Spirit.

It is necessary to know, however, that it is one thing to be considered in reality, ^C and another by reason and thought. For in all creatures, the distinction of persons is indeed considered in reality. For in the thing itself, we consider Peter separated from Paul; but the community, and the conjunction, and the unity, are perceived by reason and thought. For we conceive by the mind that Peter and Paul are of the same nature, and have one common nature. For each of them is a living being, rational and mortal; and each is flesh endowed with a rational and intelligent soul. Therefore, this common nature is contemplated by reason. For the hypostases are not in one another. But each one exists privately and individually, that is, separately; and it has many things by which it is distinguished ^D from the other person. For they are separated by place, and differ in time, and are divided in opinion, and in form or figure, and in habit, and in temperament, and in dignity, and in manner of life, and finally in all other properties by which they are distinguished as if by certain specific marks. But, above all, they differ among themselves in that they do not exist one in another, but each separately. Whence also they are called two, and three, and many men.

And from this it follows that two, and three, and many [individuals] are spoken of. Whence the unity of the divine nature. The Persons of the Trinity are indivisible. The Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to one principle. — This is what one may notice in all created things as well. But in the most holy, and more than substantial, and transcending all things, and incomprehensible Trinity, the matter holds in the contrary way. For there, the community and unity is considered in reality, by reason of the co-eternal, and the identity of the substance, and of the operation, and of the will, and the harmony of the opinion, and the identity of the authority, and of the power, and of the goodness. I did not say similarity, but

identity, and one sole manifestation of movement. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one faculty, one authority; one, I say, and the same, not three similar to one another, but one and the same movement of the three hypostases. For each one of them has to the other, no less than to itself, [an identity]; that is to say, that in all things the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, except for the unbegottenness, and the generation, and the procession; but by conception is that which is divided. For we acknowledge one God; but in the properties alone of the fatherhood, and of the sonship, and of the procession; and according to the cause and the caused, and the perfection of the hypostasis—that is, the mode of existence—do we perceive the distinction. ^B For neither can we speak of local separation, as with us, in the case of the incircumscript Divinity; for the hypostases are in one another; not so as to be confused, but so as to contain one another, according to the word of the Lord, saying, "I in the Father, and the Father in me" (John XIV, 11); nor [is there any] difference of will, or opinion, or operation, or power, or of any other thing, which in us beget real and absolute division. Wherefore we do not say three gods, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but rather one God, the holy Trinity, in that they are referred to one cause of the Son and of the Spirit, not being composed, nor commingled, according to the contraction of Sabellius; for they are united, as we have said, not so as to be confused, but so as to contain one another; and they have an indwelling in one another without any commingling and confusion, nor [are they] departing from themselves, or divided in essence according to the division of Arius. For the Divinity is indivisible in things divided, if one must ^C speak briefly, and as in three suns clinging to one another, and being inseparable, there is one blending and connexion of light. When, therefore, we look toward the divinity, and the first cause, and the monarchy, and the one, and the same of the divinity, if I may so speak, the movement and the will, and the identity of the essence, and of the power, and of the operation, and of the authority, one thing is that which is imagined in us. But when we look toward those in which the Divinity is, or, to speak more accurately, which the Divinity is, and those which from the first cause exist from it timelessly, and with equal glory, and inseparably; that is, the hypostases of the Son and of the Spirit, three are those which are adored by us. ^D It must be known that we do not say the Father is from anyone; but we say He himself is the Father of the Son. We do not say the Son is a cause, nor the Father; but we say He is both from the Father, and the Son of the Father. And the Holy Spirit, we say [he is] also from the Father, and it is read in the Moscow codex:

And we do not say the Spirit is from the Son; but we do call Him the Spirit of the Son. For "if any man," says the Apostle, "has not the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Rom. VIII, 9). And we confess that through the Son He has been manifested and imparted to us. For He breathed, he says, and said to His disciples: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John XX, 22). For the Holy Spirit is also the gift that is from the Holy Spirit. Just as from the sun there is both the ray and the brightness; for it is the source of both the ray and the brightness; but through the ray the brightness is imparted to us. And this is what enlightens us and is participated in by us. But the Son we call neither [the Son] of the Spirit, nor indeed from the Spirit. ^B

*From the same, from chapter 12.*

God the Father is He who is always unbegotten, as having been begotten from no one, yet having begotten a co-eternal Son. And God the Son is He who is ever with the Father, without time, and eternally, and without flux, and without perturbation, and without separation, begotten from Him. And God the Holy Spirit is a sanctifying power, existing in His own person, proceeding from the Father, and resting in the Son, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The Word is what essentially is always present with the Father. Word, again, is the natural movement of the mind, by which it is moved, and understands, and reasons, being as it were its light and brightness. Word, again, is also the immanent [word], which is spoken in the heart. And again, word is the messenger of a thought. Therefore, the Word which is God is substantial and subsistent; but the remaining three [types of] words are faculties of the soul, not contemplated in their own subsistence; ^C of which the first is the natural offspring of the mind, always naturally flowing from it; the second is called immanent; and the third is uttered. Spirit is understood in many ways. For the Holy Spirit, and His virtues, and a good angel, and a demon, and the soul, and sometimes even the mind is called spirit. Spirit is also the wind, and the air, and other things.

*Also concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the theology of different Fathers, distinct yet united.*

A composition cannot come to be from two perfect persons. Wherefore we do not say a species from persons, but in persons. And so we call the persons in the Holy Trinity perfect, so that no composition may be conceived in them. But we pronounce them in one another ^D successively, due to the mutual relation and connection they have among themselves, and due to their circuminsession, and due to their being uncircumscribed and not contained by place, and furthermore due to their one divinity. In all created things, the [division of] substances...

personae is seen in reality; for in reality Michael is separated from Gabriel, and Peter from Paul, and the rest [are separated] in the same way. But that which is common and one in them is conceived by thought and notion; for by notion alone do we conceive of angelhood, for instance, or humanity.

In the Divine Trinity, however, the reverse is true: their common and one element is seen in reality. For we know in reality that God is one, and that there is one and the same nature, and authority, and wisdom, and power, and operation, and one and the same will. But the division of the hypostases is conceived only by mental notion. For we dare not conceive of a personal circumscription, nor of a local interval, nor of any of the other defining properties, except for fatherhood and sonship and procession. And these are [subsistent] in a supernatural and supra-substantial manner. Hence it is that we call them one God, not being able to divide the hypostases ^B towards each other in a complete and real way, even though they are divided without division and joined without conjunction, due to the similarly supernatural and supra-substantial nature of both their division and their conjunction.

The hypostases are separated from one another, not by essence, but by the characteristic notes of the persons. Therefore, by the appellations of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—we are taught not a difference of natures, but the distinguishing properties ^C of the hypostases.

Essence, and nature, and genus, and species, and form are the same in God according to the Divine Fathers. Again, hypostasis, and person, and character, and property, and individual are the same. And essence and nature are said of all subjects equally, just as all men are of one essence and nature; but hypostasis, and person, and individual signify that which subsists specifically and by itself, and which admits of distinction from another without corruption.

Species and form are the same in the Holy Trinity, and both signify the essence. "He who has seen me," he says, "has seen my Father" (John xiv, 9), where seeing here is understood as knowing.

The essence unites the hypostases; but the hypostases distinguish the essence by their ^D characteristic and defining properties.

The essence is never spoken of regarding things that do not subsist of themselves, but the nature is often so spoken of. For he says, "The nature of a lie is such." And he says, "A conduit shows its source," and "The nature of speech indicates the heart of the speaker."

If things that are common and universal and total and perfect are predicated of the particulars subject to them, then the nature of the Divinity is also predicated as total and perfect of each of Its own hypostases. For nature and essence are something common and universal. Particular...

^A, then, is the hypostasis and the person; not that it has a part of the nature as having a part and not having a part, but as an individual. For essence is common, as being predicated of many, but the individual is particular, as being spoken of only one.

The definition and law of the Church does not consider nature and hypostasis to be the same. For the difference that the common has toward the specific, and the universal toward the particular, and the indefinite toward the defined, this also relates the nature to the hypostasis. Nor are we ignorant that blessed Cyril and other Fathers often used these two names indiscriminately when they discoursed on the divine assumption of human flesh. For they misused them—now pronouncing hypostasis in place of essence, and now essence in place of hypostasis—not because they thought them to be the same, but because from the beginning not only holy Scripture ^B, but also the teachers of the Church, were accustomed to use certain terms in many matters without any distinction, knowing that words bring no harm when the facts are otherwise. Such is the opinion of Cyril himself. And the expounder of sacred things, Dionysius, says that it is the mark of a demented and unskilled man to pay attention not to the subject matter, but to the words. And Gregory the Theologian says this: "Let those who bicker over words not be so unseemly, as if our piety were situated in words, and not in the facts themselves." And again: "Truth for us is situated not in words, but in the facts." Therefore, when authors misuse words, the things which those words seem to signify are neither properly what is said—since they are not even spoken of properly as what they are—nor are they understood as they are spoken.

When Cyril speaks of a union of hypostases, and difference, and property in place of essential qualities, he uses the term of "hypostases" to demonstrate through such a term the subsistence of the united natures, so that there was no union of some likenesses and forms that are unsubstantial, ^C but of subsisting realities. And that this is so, he himself says in the apology for his first anathema against the objections of Theodoret, that: "Let it be taught that if, apart from the hypostases, the forms alone had come together with one another, then they would have come together by the mode of union as certain likenesses and forms not subsisting by themselves. But now there was a meeting not of likenesses, but of realities, and therefore of hypostases."

That he believed there is a difference between nature and hypostasis, he himself teaches again in his second epistle to Nestorius, saying: "We do not refer the voices of our Savior in the Gospels to two hypostases, nor to two persons." And again in his epistle to the Orientals he says that: "We know that the theological men understand the evangelical and apostolic ^D utterances concerning the Lord, some as being held in common, as when referred to one person; and others as being divided, as when attributed to the two natures." And the same man says again: "Christ is not double, but one and alone," saying this because of His one hypostasis. For according to the natures, he is also called double. Where the discourse proceeds simply and without distinction, we find not only the Fathers, but also the divine Scripture...

using terms freely and simply. For the divine Apostle calls both the inner man and the outer man "man," thus bestowing the name of the whole upon its parts. But the prophets, on the contrary, sometimes call a person "flesh," and sometimes "soul," designating the whole by the names of its parts. ^A Yet when the occasion calls for it, they use their names strictly. Following the discourse mentioned, the Theologian John also said, "And the Word became flesh," instead of saying that he became man. But we shall not contend or argue over this. For the great Dionysius says that this is not characteristic of those who desire to understand divine things, but of those who merely welcome empty sounds and are moved by the elements, syllables, and words without understanding, remaining on the surface of their souls and not passing through to the intellectual, but only buzzing about their lips and ears.

^B Hypothesis is doubled. For [hypostasis] is said of that which simply exists in being, because it subsists and exists, which is considered without its characteristic properties; and it also indicates the [person], which subsists in itself with the aforementioned properties. For what the Peripatetics like to call [individuals]—to which the division of genera and species finally arrives, as they can be divided no further (for the division of a man into soul and body usually results in his destruction)—these the teachers of the Church have called persons and hypostases. They are called [hypostases] because the genera and species, which are common and uncircumscribed, receive their existence and circumscription in them. For even if "animal" and "man"—of which the former is a genus and the latter a species—have their own definition by which they exist, yet they occupy the hypostasis in the individuals, for example in Peter and Paul, without which they cannot subsist. And so much for the hypostasis.

Moreover, the term [enypostaton] is also twofold. For it signifies that which simply is, in which sense we call by the name [enypostaton] not only the essence—which those learned in these matters call [hyparchion] or [hypostaton]—because it simply is and subsists, but we also call the [accidents] [enypostata], because they do not have their subsistence and being in themselves but in another, namely in the essence; these are more properly called [heterohypostata]. It also signifies that which is by itself and exists in its own right, in which sense individuals are also called [enypostata], which indeed are more properly and recognizably hypostases. But let this suffice concerning the word [enypostaton].

^C Furthermore, [anypostaton] is likewise twofold. For [anypostaton] is said not only of that which in no way and in no sense exists, but also of that which has its hypostasis in another, such as the accidents, because they cannot subsist by themselves. But if we investigate more subtly and accurately, we shall find that [hypostasis] also signifies many other things. For besides the things mentioned above, [hypostasis] also signifies a [burden], as in Deuteronomy: "How shall I be able alone to bear the hypostasis of you?" ^D In...

that place in Deuteronomy indicates: "How can I alone bear your burden?" For there the Greeks have *hypostasis*, but in the Hebrew volume there is *waschen*, which word means "burden." Beyond this, *hypostasis* also signifies food, or provisions, as can be understood from the Book of Judges, where the Jews say: "For the Midianites," they say, "have plundered the fruits of the land and our substance." For what is here "substance," in Greek *hypostasis*, among the Hebrews is *micheia*, which signifies livelihood. ^B *Hypostasis* is also used in the sense of "hope." For in the book which is inscribed Ruth, Naomi says thus: "I have no son, nor hope." But in Hebrew it is *thicuium*, by which word the hope of bearing children is declared. Likewise, *hypostasis* signifies price, or reward, as in the first book of Kings, for the reward of the smith: "To the ax," he says, and what follows, "this was the reward." What is here reward and *hypostasis* in Greek, in Hebrew is spoken as *ardaban*, by which word price and reward are indicated. It also signifies "camp" or "encampment" in the same first book of Kings: "Come," says Jonathan to his armiger, "let us go over to the camp of the Philistines." Here is *hypostasim*, but among the Hebrews *mataam*, which signifies camp or tent. *Hypostasis* also holds for that which subsists in liquid things, by which signification we speak of the *hypostasis* of urine, as well as ability or faculty, as in that phrase: "And my substance is as nothing before thee." And "firmament," as in that: "I am fixed in the mud of the deep, and there is no substance." And "business" or "negotiation," as in that of Jeremiah: "He compelled," he says, "without your business." And "arcanum" (secret), as the same Jeremiah says concerning the false prophets: "And if they stood," he says, "in my substance"—that is, in my secret. And "firmament," as Ezekiel regarding the framing of the temple: "Describing," he says, "the house," and what follows, where he puts *hypostasis* for firmament. And "praise," as the Apostle: "What I speak," he says, "I speak not according to God, but as in folly, in this substance of boasting."

TITULUS III. On God, or on the Divinity commonly.

It is clear that he who says God, or Divinity, or the divine Numen (Power), declares by the common name of these the three *hypostases* of the one Divinity, or persons. The Areopagite. That these might be clearer, they have been explained somewhat more fully by a certain paraphrase.

^C The Divine Numen is indeed the cause that things exist. But Itself does not exist, inasmuch as It is not one of the things that are, but excels all. Although God is indeed said to "be," as in that passage: "I am who I am," yet He is not thus (as existing), as the things that are—for how could the creator be as the creations? Nor is He thus, but He is *simply* and *idiotropically* (in a unique way), that is, *excellently*, and in the way that He alone knows. For whose nature is unknown to all things that exist after Him, of Him the very "to be" is utterly unknown. By this same argument we say that God both is "one" and is not "one": one indeed, because no other of such a kind exists; but not one, because He surpasses every notion and knowledge of unity. Furthermore, He is one because He cannot be divided and is simple; ^D yet He is not "one" as are the things that are indivisible and simple, but He is above every "one," and above every indivisibility and simplicity; and the creator of these is likewise said to be "essence," and "not essence."

^A

From the same.

From the same.

From the same.

From the same.

Item concerning the divine incarnation, from Damascenus. Chap. 66.

^A of the ages. And time, as the measure of ^A things; and as their boundary, as it bounds them; since even the eternal [things], and the very infinity of the ages, are bounded by the infinity of His, which is infinitely and endlessly extended beyond them. Generation, as the producer of things that come to be in any way; and place, as containing all things. And all things are above all things.

*Of the same.* God is called both the limit of beings, and infinity: a limit, as bounding them; infinity, as extended beyond them; for His infinity is spread over all things infinitely.

*Of the same.* Those who sometimes call God essential being itself, life itself, power itself, peace itself, and such things, and at other times constitute Him the establisher and creator of essential being, and of life itself, and of power itself, and of peace itself, and of such like, do not speak things contrary to one another. For sometimes He is named from things, and especially from those that are first, as the cause of them; and at other times [He is named] in a more excellent way, as being more preeminent than all those even which are first. But we say that essential being, or being itself, as life ^B itself, and power itself, and peace itself, and other things of the same kind, sometimes in a way which is worthy of God—namely, as one principle and cause more excellent than every principle of all things; and at other times as they are attributed and communicated by God. And thus, in the first way, the Greeks proclaim them; and in the second way, [these things] which we say subsist from God in an absolute, and principal, and primary sense. But some of the sacred teachers declare the super-divine God to be the establisher even of goodness itself and divinity itself, calling that which comes forth from God the goodness-making and god-making participation and gift. ^C And some of the sacred teachers assert that plusquam divinum [more than divine] God... for they assert that goodness itself and divinity itself is the communion and grace that makes [men] good and divine.

*Of the same.* Both the great and the small are attributed to God, who is the cause of all things. The small is shown, since [He appeared] in a thin breeze. He is called great as the dispenser of magnitude, and [as endowed] with infinite magnitude, and surpassing every magnitude: whose magnitude has no quantity, nor measure, nor limit. The small or fine is said of God, because He has no mass, occupies no space, and passes through all things without any obstacle, ^D and penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, and thoughts and intentions of the heart. Yea, discerning all things, for there is no created thing that escapes His gaze. And this "small" also has no quantity, and is infinite, and invisible; and though it is itself incomprehensible, it contains all things. Furthermore, both "the same" and "the different" are said of God. The former in [the passage], "But Thou art the same"; the latter in [the passage], "Lord, Lord, who is like unto Thee?"

^A He is said to be "the same" because He is immutable, always being the same, existing in the same way, unmixed, needing nothing, never increasing, never diminishing, and because He is the source of sameness. He is called "different," however, as there is nothing equal to Him; for all existing things are creatures of the One who Truly Is, and He Himself is above all things, and is different from and unrelated to all things. Furthermore, He is also [called different] as the Creator of different and diverse things. He is also called "like," for He says, "I have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I was made like," on account of His appearing to them in such and such a form, and being likened to those of a specific nature. Also, [He is called like] because He is the giver of the power of likeness; for He says, "Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness." ^B One must know that things are both like and unlike God: like, insofar as they imitate Him, who can be expressed by no imitation; unlike, insofar as those things which derive from a cause are removed from the cause itself.

God is also spoken of as having "rest" and "motion." "Rest," because God remains within Himself, is fixed permanently, is unmoved from Himself, and is extended above all things. "Motion," however, is not understood as being intellectual, or psychic, or natural, or local, or indeed any of the motions so-called, but [consists in] His sustaining encompassment of all things, His providential processions toward existing things, and those energies that are above every energy, and because, due to the immense complex of all things, His goings forth and actions are more excellent than any action. ^C

Of the same. God is called "Omnipotent" (Pantokrator) not only because He rules over all and imposes the yokes of His lordship and the bonds of His love upon all, but also because, as an almighty foundation, He fixes all things within Himself, establishes them, sustains them by a single super-essential hold, and does not allow them to fall away from Himself.

Of the same. God is and is called "Power," as being of infinite power, all-powerful, bringing everything into being by power, and bestowing power upon all. For there is nothing among existing things that does not partake of power from Him—whether intellectual, rational, vital, sensory, or essential. ^D For even being itself, if it is permitted to say so, has its existence from that super-essential power which holds a substance more excellent than substance, so that it may be, and it strengthens all things so that each may exercise its own motions, powers, and actions. For that which possesses absolutely no power neither is, nor is it anything. For the omnipotent power extends even to the outermost reaches of its effects. These are things that are completely devoid of life and sensation, yet even they partake of the power to exist. This "Power of power," then, and Giver of power, and super-powerful Power, gives power even to the weak. For indeed, even gnats, mosquitoes, flies, and things even weaker than these [partake of it]. For God said concerning the cankerworm and the locust, "My power is great."

^A Same. God is said to communicate Himself by reason of the gifts which He distributes to all things, yet not to communicate, because no thing is a participant of His essence, or of His life, or of His wisdom, or of any of those things which He possesses in a most excellent and singular manner.

Same. Whence it comes to pass that He is possessed as a whole by individual things, and yet no thing possesses any part of Him, just as the center in a circle is possessed as a whole by all lines drawn from it, and yet no part of it is possessed by any one of them. Just as a seal, from which many impressions are taken, communicates itself as a whole and the same to everyone, yet no part of it is possessed by any one of them. Nevertheless, the Divinity—which is the cause of all things—accomplishes this not by a kind of communicable division; because it is joined to those to whom it communicates without any contact or association of mixture. And if anyone objects that in all examples the whole and the same sign is not imprinted, I shall answer: it is not the fault of the seal, which accommodates itself, whole and the same, to each, but it happens because of the diversity of those receiving it, that the images of one, whole, and the same exemplar are dissimilar. For example, if they are simple, easy, light, and tractable, not resistant, not rough, not fragile, not unstable, they will receive a pure, clear, and firm impression. But if any of those things which have been mentioned be lacking, and therefore they are less apt and suitable for receiving the form, this will be the cause of the dissimilarity, and of the deformity, and of other inconveniences ^C which happen to matter less accommodated to receiving the form.

Same. One is the essence, and beauty, and goodness, and wisdom of all things—God—whom all who are of the same form seek. But they become participants of Him, not all in one way, although He Himself exists as one and the same, but one in one way and another in another, as the divine balance distributes to each according to each one’s capacity.

Same. Since God both is, and, bestowing being upon things, brings forth many essences, that one [Being] is said to be multiplied by the production of many beings from Him. But He remains even so in the multitude, and full in the distinction, because on account of His essence He is superior to every essence, in a way that is extraordinary and excels those things that are. Moreover, although He is one, and communicates the One to the one, and to the multitude, and to the whole, and to the part, ^D He is again one by an essence that excels singularly—that is, properly and extraordinarily—since He is neither one of those things that are, nor a multitude, nor a whole from parts, nor a part from a whole. And thus He is neither one, nor a participant of the one, but is one far removed from these, as being the One, in that He is far more excellent than the one that is in things. Furthermore, on account of the effectuation of many gods proceeding from Him, according to the divine appearance of each according to their strength, it both seems and is said to be the progress, division, and multiplication of one God; yet He is the one prince of gods, indivisible in those which are divisible, unmixed in the many, and not multiplied, as being superessentially superessential, and above-

divine reason the supreme God. ^A Considering this, the great Paul says: "For although there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." For even in divine matters, the unities prevail and take precedence over the distinctions.

Of the same.

Of the same.

^A and for all things the propriety of each, through which the one and indissoluble conjunction of all things subsists, and a certain consonance and concord is effected, when the one remains unmixed, pure, and sincere in its own proper species, joined indeed in mixture, but divided in the property of its nature. This, then, is the arch-conciliator, peace, which binds the extremes by means of the middle. Whence those most ancient of the conciliatory powers are united both with one another and with the one primary peace of all things, and they unite those things under them with one another, and with themselves, and with the one and perfect beginning and cause of the peace of all things. There is, therefore, nothing at all that does not love peace. And even if those who delight in enmities, quarrels, and seditions appear to abhor peace and the benefits of peace, yet even they are captivated by certain obscure simulations of peace; and when they are shaken by the various motions of perturbations, they ignorantly desire to restrain and settle them, and hope that they will attain peace through the fulfillment of the pleasures by whose inordinate and triumphant tumult they are pressed.

Of the Same.

Of the Same.

Of the Same.

- tion, establishing each in its own reason, and moving it towards its own motion. ^A

Of the Same. From God, and in God, is even being itself, and the principles of all things, and all that is, even things that are contrary to one another. And this is so without relation, and exceptionally, and comprehensively, and unitively. For even in the monad every number exists beforehand in a unified way, and the monad contains every number within itself in a singular manner, as the cause of every number. And every number is united in the monad; yet in so far as it proceeds from the monad, by that much it is distinguished and multiplied. And in the center, all the lines of a circle are subsistent in one union, and the center holds all the straight lines within itself in a unified way, both towards one another and towards that one principle from which they proceeded. And in the center itself they are completely united, but distant by a little, they also become distinct by a little from one another. Much more, as they depart from it, they depart more from one another. But also in the whole nature of all things, all the reasons of the nature of each individual are bound together according to an unconfused union. And in the soul, too, the powers that provide for the whole body are unified ^B in a singular way. Therefore it is not absurd that, ascending from dim and faint images to the cause of all things, we should behold with eyes more sublime than the world all things joined and linked together in the cause of all things in a unified and singular way.

Of the Same. If our sun here, though it is one and emits a single light, nevertheless gives life to many and various essences and qualities of things, and nourishes, and increases, and perfects, and guards, and divides, and joins, and warms, and makes things generative, and changes, and settles, and brings forth, and stirs into motion, and every one of all things partakes of the one and same sun in its own way, and the one sun possesses in itself individually and embraces the many causes of such participations: much more must it be granted that in the cause of both the sun and all things, the exemplars of all things exist beforehand through a more excellent essence and a more ^C excellent union. By exemplars we now mean those reasons existing beforehand in God in a unified way, and which are the makers of the essences of things, which the Apostle Paul calls "predestinations," and divine wills by which things are defined and brought into being. By these, He who is more excellent than essence has predestined and brought forth into existence all things that are. Therefore, in His superextended infinity, He possesses and comprehends all things beforehand in a unified way, and is participated in by all things in a unified way, just as one and the same voice is participated in by many ears as one.

Of the Same. Just as holy men are said to be the house of God: "For I will dwell," he says, "in them, and walk among them" (II Cor. vi, 17); so also God is the house of good ^D men. "Be unto me,"

^A he says, "a God to protect me, and a house of refuge to save me" (Ps. xxx, 3). And the Lord himself says: "You in me, and I in you" (John xiv, 20). And just as God is in them without being included, nor is he circumscribed, nor are they in him with any confusion of essence, so also they are in him without confusion and without mixture in essence.

Of the same

God’s quality, having no quantity, must be considered to be broad and providing for everything in its progression. But the length is his power, as is shown above. The depth, however, is his hidden mystery, on account of which he cannot be perceived or known.

Of the same

God in the sacred oracles of mystical visions is depicted as both an old man and a young one; as an old man, ^B signifying that he is the beginning of all things and never ages, and as a young one, signifying according to numerical ratio his antiquity and divine manifestation. For the unit is more primal than the numbers that have advanced far from the unit.

Of the same

Neither do things know God as God is; nor does God know things as they are. Things, however, do not know God—that is, as he is—because no things can attain to the knowledge of God as he is, that is, as his nature is itself constituted. For he alone knows himself thus. But God does not know things as they are, ^C because he knows them in a way that transcends knowledge.

Of the same

God is indeed present to all things; for he is not in a place, so that he might be absent from anything, but he embraces all things. And yet, not all things are present to God, but only those which are worthy of divine proximity. We, however, are then present to him, when we call upon him with most holy vows and prayers, and with minds that are entirely pure and not in the least defiled, and when we show ourselves to be apt and suitable ^D to draw near to him. For just as if a chain were woven from lights, reaching down from the height of heaven to here, and we, taking hold with alternate hands, were to attempt to keep pulling it down, we would not appear to be pulling it down, but in reality we would be introducing ourselves above and below to its higher gleams; or just as if we had entered a ship and were gripping the ropes extended to us from a rock, and as if we were reaching for the rock, pulling against it, we would not pull the rock to us, but we would move both ourselves and the ship to the rock: so also, those praying and beseeching do not draw God down to them—him who is present everywhere—but we rather bring and commend ourselves to him through divine remembrance and invocation.

Of the same

Among us, indeed, drunkenness leads to the worse, and is an excessive repleteness of wine, by which the mind is removed from its place.

^A But in God, it looks toward the better, and is an immoderate, total repletion with every good, by which the mind is moved away from intelligence. For it is removed from intelligence, while it is placed above intelligence.

Item: Concerning God, in common, from Saint Maximus.

Let God be thought of as the Mind of those who think and of what is thought, the Word of those who speak and of what is spoken, the Life of those who live and are given life; and for all, He is all things, and becoming through these things that exist and are brought into existence. But for Himself, He is in no way, according to no manner, neither existing nor coming into existence as something (out of those things that are), and out of those things that are brought into existence, inasmuch as He is not naturally aligned with any of them at all. ^B And for this reason, He admits "not being" rather as being more proper to be said of Him, on account of His being pre-eminent. For if it is necessary for us to know the difference between God and created things, it is necessary that there be the affirmation of the super-existent, and that the negation of these things that are be the affirmation of the super-existent; and that both of these designations be piously considered concerning the same One, and yet that neither can be said properly—I mean [the terms] "being" and "not being"—both, indeed, because the one affirms God as the cause of those things that are, and the other negates [Him] by way of pre-eminence as the cause of all those things that are, and yet neither is said properly, since neither presents the affirmation of that which is sought, according to His very essence and nature. ^C For that which is in no way naturally joined by way of cause—neither as being nor as not being—to this, nothing of those things that are or are said, nor of those things that are not or are not said, is reasonably near. For He has His existence simple, and unknown, and inaccessible to all, and altogether ineffable, being beyond every affirmation and negation.

Of the same.

One and only is God, always and properly by nature, enclosing in Himself, in every way, the whole of what "to be" properly is, as He is also superior to "being" properly. But if this is so, not one of those things that are said to be has, in any way in any place, the whole of what "to be" properly is; therefore, nothing at all can be considered with Him from eternity that is different by essence, neither an age, nor time, nor anything of those things that dwell within these. ^D For "to be properly" and "not properly" never coincide with one another at all.

Of the same.

God alone is simple properly, and is properly One, and Unit, and Monad; but all things after God are dyads and composite, even if not equally. For those things which are intelligible consist of an essence and a constitutive difference which bounds each one—for everything that has something looked at along with it for the manifestation of its own existence is not simple properly—and things that are sensible [consist] of form and matter.

Of the same.

In the case of God, we do not say that "Being," and "Good," and "God," and "Creator," and "Supra-essential," and "Infinite," and "Immortal," and things like these differ...

in their essential features, lest we declare him to be composed of these things; rather, we affirm that they are terms, some of which are indicative of qualities contemplated around him, yet none of which are indicative of his essence and nature. For some indicate things befitting the divine nature, yet they do not reveal the nature itself—a property proper to essential and constitutive differences. ^B

*Of the same.* God is indivisible because he has no quantity. He has no quantity because he is devoid of quality. He is devoid of quality because he is simple. He is simple because he is boundless. He is boundless because he is infinite. He is infinite because he is immovable. He is immovable because he is without beginning. For there is nothing before him, and greater; nothing with him, and equal; nothing after him. He is without beginning because he is unbegotten. He is unbegotten because he is one and most singular. He is one and most singular because he is altogether immense; therefore he can be neither explained nor known, and the only true knowledge of him is that he cannot be known.

*Of the same.* God is infinite, not only in that he is without beginning and without end, but also in regard to his essence, power, and action. For he is neither perceived through his essence, nor known through his power and action. To speak more truly, he is undefined by every reason and manner; for this is the property of the infinite. For just as the unit is neither a number, nor numerable, nor a whole, nor a part, nor a property of number, but is the beginning and cause of all number, and without beginning—because it has no number prior to it or cause for it to be a unit—so also God, to use a small example, is greater than all quantity, quality, and condition, and is simple, and without beginning, ^C and is the beginning of all things that exist.

*Of the same.* Since God is simple, he has a single, good action that produces all things in all, like a sunbeam, which warms all things, working in each according to its natural aptitude and capacity to receive it.

*Of the same.* God, who is essence itself, goodness itself, and wisdom itself—or rather, who is more sublime than all these—has absolutely nothing contrary to him. Created things, however, are all participants in essence by grace and gift. Those that consist of reason and mind, and possess a nature suited to receive goodness and wisdom, have a contrary: in essence, non-existence; and in their nature, which is suited to receive goodness and wisdom, they have malice and ignorance. Furthermore, that they always exist or do not exist is in the power of the Creator; but whether they become participants in his goodness and wisdom, or do not, lies in the will of those who are endowed with reason. ^D

[By the same.] ^A The Greeks, saying that the essence of all things has co-existed with God from eternity, and that it received its qualities from him later, assert that there is nothing contrary to the essence itself, but that contrariety is to be found only in the qualities. We, however, teaching that only the divine essence, because it alone is properly infinite, has nothing contrary to it, say that for the essence of all things, what is contrary is "not-being," since it was from non-being that he established it. And that to exist or not to exist lies in the power of the Creator; but it pleased him, as he is good, that it should exist and remain, held fast by his omnipotent power.

[By the same.] ^B Every essence, bringing its own definition with it—that is to say, being defined—is naturally the beginning of the motion viewed in it according to potency. And every essential motion toward an action is a mean, being conceived after the essence but before the action. And every action, being naturally circumscribed by the rational principle belonging to it, is the end of the essential motion viewed before it by way of conception. But God is neither a beginning, nor a mean, nor an end. For these are characteristics of things divided by time, and one might also say, of those viewed within the aeon. For time, having motion as its measure, is circumscribed by number. The aeon, however, having the category of "when" conceived along with its existence, undergoes division, as having received a beginning of being. If time and the aeon are not without a beginning, much less so are those things contained within them. God, therefore, being neither essence, lest he be thought a beginning, nor ^C power, lest he be called a mean, nor action, lest he be named an end, is the maker of essence, and a supra-essential entity, and the maker of power, and a supra-powerful omnipotence, and the producer of every action, and an unending condition. And to speak briefly, he is the producer of every essence, and power, and action, and of beginning, and mean, and end.

[By the same.] Every beginning, and mean, and end does not escape the relative category. But God, being altogether ^D higher than every relation by infinite degrees, is neither a beginning, nor a mean, nor an end, nor anything else of those things in which the category of the "relative" can be considered.

[By the same.] God is called the beginning of things, and the mean, and the end, but as acting, not as acted upon, just as all other things by which he is named by us. For he is the beginning as Creator, the mean as provider, and the end as circumscription. "For from him," he says, "and through him, and to him are all things."

[By the same.] Nothing of the things that exist makes itself; and that which is not self-acting is not without a cause. And that which is not without a cause is not immobile; and that which is not immobile moves on account of a

^A cause, for which and toward which it performs its motion. For nothing of those things which are moved is naturally moved without a cause. Now the principle of every natural motion is the generation of those things which are moved. And the principle of the generation of things generated is God, as the Author of generation; but the end of the natural motion of things generated is the state which infinity produces after the passing of those things which have passed—an infinity in which, because there is no interval, every motion of things naturally moved ceases. Therefore, of every generation and motion and state of beings, the principle, and the middle, and the end is God, as things have been generated from Him, and are moved through Him, and are destined to find their state in Him, who also embraces the infinity that defines and terminates all motions.

Of the same. God is the principle of the generation of things that come to be, and the end of the motion of things that are moved, and the stable and immobile foundation for those who are borne toward Him, and for everything the term without term, and the infinite end.

Of the same. Men are called good, wise, and just within a certain limit; but God is absolutely called that: good, and wise, and just, and goodness, and wisdom, and justice, inasmuch as He is the essence of all virtue. Wherefore he who is a participant of virtue is a participant of God, who is, as we have said, the essence and fountain of virtue.

Of the same. God, who is knowledge by essence, has only the knowledge of the good, as He is by nature the sole good. But every nature endowed with reason after God cannot, in the simple movement of the mind at the same time, possess knowledge of good and evil, since the knowledge of one contrary naturally brings about the ignorance of the other contrary. Just as also the eyes cannot at the same time look upward and downward, or to the right and left.

Of the same. God knows both Himself and those things which are below Himself. Likewise, a nature endowed with reason and mind knows both God and those things which are beneath God; but not in the same way that God does. For He, from the contemplation of His own essence, understands Himself through Himself; and those things which are below Him, He knows from His own wisdom, through which and in which He created all things. But that ^D nature knows God while it becomes a participant—a participation beyond participation—of Him who is participant of nothing; it participates in Him both by its very being, and by the aptitude for well-being, and by the grace for eternal being. It perceives those things which are under God, meanwhile, as it comprehends His skillful wisdom in them and the natural reasons of those things. Yet angels, as they are pure minds, understand more sublimely, while men do so more humbly, as they are weighed down by the heaviness of the body.

^A It was the time of the Passover and of the Unleavened Bread; the one on the fourteenth day, the other from the fifteenth until the twenty-first, during which days it was not permitted to fast.

*Of the same.* If they say that they are expecting to recover the city, say to them: "Then be quiet until you do recover it." For even those holy men who were led into captivity before you performed no legal sacrifice until they had recovered it; but you, by rejecting them, openly transgress the law.

^B *Of the same.* Since there is no anointing, you have no priest; when a priest is absent, you have no sacrifice, nor any [legal] worship.

*Of the same.* God, foreshadowing the abolition of the legal priesthood, said through David: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," who offered no legal sacrifice, but prayers, and bread, and wine, as history teaches. It is evident, therefore, that together with the priesthood of Aaron, the legal administration was also abolished, and in its place a form of administration corresponding to that of Melchizedek was brought in.

*Of the same.* Nothing is more wretched than the Jews. For when they ought to have kept the Law, they transgressed it; but now, when they ought not to observe it, they attempt to do so, and they provoke God not only by transgressing, but also by observing it.

^C *Of the same.* The Jews endured three grievous bondages: the one in Egypt, the one in Babylon, and the one under Antiochus Epiphanes. God brought none of these upon them without a preceding announcement; rather, for each one He indicated the number of years: for the first four hundred, for the second seventy, and for the third three and a half years, and a little more, and He announced their freedom. And concerning that which was in Egypt, God foretold to Abraham: "Know well that your seed shall be a stranger in a land not its own, and they shall enslave them, and shall afflict them for four hundred years. But the nation whom they shall serve, I will judge; and in the fourth generation they shall return here with much substance." You have now learned the number of years, namely four hundred; and the bitterness of the bondage, in that He said, "They shall afflict them"; and the punishment of their enslavers, in that they were condemned to be drowned in the waters; and the manner of their liberation, in that "with much substance," that is, with wealth. And concerning the one in Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet prophesied, saying: "The Lord says: When seventy years are about to be fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will establish My good words over you, to turn [you] back to this place. And I will turn back the captivity."

Also on God, commonly, from the 11th chapter of John of Damascus

^A Since we find many things said in Sacred Scripture about God in a more corporeal and symbolic manner, we must recognize that it is impossible for us, who are men and are wrapped in this dense flesh, to understand or speak of those divine, exalted, and immaterial operations of the Godhead, unless we employ likenesses, types, and symbols corresponding to our own nature. Whatever, therefore, has been said of God in a more corporeal way is said symbolically, yet it possesses a higher meaning; for the Divine is simple and devoid of any form. By the eyes, eyelids, and sight of God, let us understand His power of overseeing all things, and the unerring accuracy of His knowledge, since by this sense a more complete and perfect knowledge and assurance comes to us. By ears and hearing, understand His propensity to forgive and His benignity in receiving our prayers; for we, too, in responding to those who make supplications to us, show ourselves gentle and yielding through this sense, by more kindly turning our ear toward them. By mouth and speech, we receive a declaration of His will, just as we also bring forth the hidden thoughts of our hearts through mouth and speech. By eating and drinking, understand our ready approach to His will; for we, too, satisfy the necessary appetite of our nature through the sense of taste. By smell, the power by which He accepts and appreciates a thought or goodwill toward Him, just as we, too, through this sense, receive the fragrance of scents. By face, the demonstration and manifestation of Himself through His works, just as we, too, are openly known by our countenance and mouth. By hands, the efficacy of His operation; for we, too, perform those things that are necessary and especially the most valuable by means of our own hands. By the right hand, His aid and help in favorable circumstances, from the fact that we, too, prefer to use our right hand for the most noble, important, and power-demanding tasks. By touch, the more precise, minute, and secret exploration and examination of His power, just as those whom we handle are unable to hide anything in themselves from us. By feet and walking, His coming and presence, whether for bringing aid to those in need, or for avenging enemies, or for performing any other action, just as feet afford us the ability to arrive at a certain place. By oath, the immutability ^D of His will, because among us, mutual agreements are confirmed by the interposition of an oath. By anger and wrath, His opposed will and hatred toward wickedness; for we, too, when we hate things that conflict with our will and resolution, burst forth into anger. By forgetfulness, sleep, and slumber, the postponement of vengeance upon enemies and the delay of the customary help toward those who are His own; and, to speak simply, all things spoken of God in a corporeal manner contain a hidden meaning, teaching us about what is above us by means of what is according to us, unless it be said concerning the corporeal coming of the Word of God; for He Himself assumed the whole man for our salvation.

Of the Same concerning place, from chapter 13.

^B A corporeal place is the limit of that which contains, in so far as it contains that which is contained. For example, the air contains this body. But the whole air which encompasses it is not the place of the contained body, but the extremity of the ambient air which touches the contained body. That which contains, however, is not at all in that which is contained. There is also an intelligible place, where the intelligible and incorporeal nature is understood and exists; where it is also present and acts, and is not contained corporeally, but intelligibly. For it does not have a figure, so as to be contained corporeally. Now God, being immaterial and uncircumscribed, is not in a place. For He Himself is His own place, who fills all things, and is above all things, and Himself contains all things. Yet it is said that He is in a place, and the place of God is spoken of where His operation becomes manifest. For He Himself passes through all things without mixture, and communicates His own operation to all according to the aptitude and receptive power of each, I mean natural and voluntary purity. Those things are purer which lack matter than those which are pressed down in matter; and those which are endowed with virtue than those which are conjoined with vice. Therefore, that is called the place of God which has more of His operation and grace. For this reason, heaven is called His throne, ^C because the angels are in it, who obey His will and always praise Him. For this is rest for Him. And the earth is called the footstool of His feet. For on it, through the flesh, He conversed with men. The foot of God is multifoldly called His holy flesh. The Church, too, is called the place of God. For we have set this apart for His glorification, as a kind of temple, in which we also pour forth prayers to Him. Similarly, those places in which His works are manifest, whether He wrought them in the flesh or without a body, are called places of God. It must be known, however, that the Divine is indivisible, being wholly entire everywhere, and not divided part in part in a corporeal manner, but whole in all, and whole above all. ^D An angel, indeed, is not contained in a place corporeally, so as to assume form and figure; nevertheless, he is said to be in a place because he is present intelligibly, and acts as befits his own nature, and is not elsewhere, but is contained intelligibly there where he acts. For he cannot act in different places at the same time. For it belongs to God alone to act everywhere at the same time. For an angel, by the speed of his nature, and by the readiness—that is, quickly—of passing from one place to another, acts in different places; but the Divine, being everywhere and above all, acts everywhere at the same time and in different ways with a single and simple operation. The soul is connected to the body, the whole to the whole, and not part to part, and it is not contained by it, but

at the same time acts in various ways with one and simple action. But the mind is bound to the body, and wholly conjoined to the whole, not as a part joined to a part, nor is it contained by the body, but itself contains it as fire contains iron. And remaining in it, it executes its own proper actions.

The same. ^B That which is circumscribed is contained either by place, or by time, or by comprehension. But that which is not circumscribed is contained by none of these. God alone, therefore, is not circumscribed, for He has neither beginning nor end, and He contains all things and is contained by no comprehension. For He alone can neither be comprehended, nor defined, nor known by any, but He alone knows Himself. The angel, however, is circumscribed by time, for he began to exist, and by place, although, as we have said, in an intelligible way, and by comprehension. For angels also naturally know each other to some extent, and are perfectly comprehended by their Creator. Bodies, however, are circumscribed by beginning, and end, and corporeal place, and comprehension.

TITLE IV.

That the Divine nature cannot be comprehended.

God was always, and is, and shall be: or, to speak more correctly, He always is. For "was" and "shall be" are segments of our time and of a mutable nature; but He who always is, and this is what He calls Himself when He gives the oracle to Moses on the mountain. ^C For He holds the whole in Himself, having an existence that neither began nor will have an end, as it were a kind of sea of essence, infinite and boundless, surpassing every concept of both time and nature; represented by the mind alone, and that indeed very slightly and obscurely, not from the things that are in Him, but from those that are around Him: gathering one likeness of truth from one appearance after another, fleeing before it is grasped, and escaping before it is understood; illuminating our ruling principle—even when it is purified—only as much as the speed of a lightning flash, which does not remain, illumines the gaze of the eyes. This, however, in my opinion, happens so that, in as far as He can be comprehended, He might draw us to Himself (for that which cannot be perceived at all, no one hopes for nor attempts to reach); but in as far as He cannot be caught, He may excite wonder, and by that very wonder be more vehemently desired, and being desired may purify, and purifying may make us godlike, and when we have been made such, then, as if with those familiar to Him, He may have communion—I fear lest this may seem too boldly stated by me—God joined to gods and known, and perhaps only to the extent that He already knows those who are known to Him. God is therefore immense and infinite and difficult to contemplate: and this alone can be universally comprehended of Him, namely, that He is immense and infinite; even if someone thinks that, because He is of a simple nature, he possesses this reason, that He is either entirely incomprehensible, or else can be entirely and perfectly comprehended. For let us inquire what He might be, who has a simple nature. For simplicity is not nature to Him: since not even for composite things is composition alone their nature.

^A Now, when immensity is considered in two ways, namely in terms of beginning and end (for that which is above these, and not in them, is immense), whenever the mind looks into the abyss above, having nowhere to stand or to find support for its phantasies about God, it has called this the immense and the inextricable, the anarchic, that is to say, lacking a beginning; but when it looks to the lower and subsequent things, it calls it immortal and free from destruction; and when it gathers and collects both, it calls it eternal. For eternity is neither time nor any part of time (for indeed it does not fall into measurement); but what to us is time, defined by the motion of the sun, this is to the eternal things an age, that is, a certain temporal-like movement and interval, which extends along with the eternal.

From the same, from the discourse on theology

To perceive God by the intellect is difficult, but to express Him is impossible, as one of the theologians among the Greeks has taught, not without skill in my judgment, namely, that by affirming Him to be difficult to grasp by the intellect, he might create in men the opinion that he himself has grasped Him with knowledge; and by saying that He cannot be explained in any words, he might act so that his own ignorance cannot be betrayed and convicted. I indeed think it should be said rather that the nature of God can indeed be explained by no words; but that it can be comprehended by the mind and intellect is ^B much less possible. For what one has grasped with mind and reason, that perhaps one might also be able to declare in speech, even if not with skill, at least obscurely, provided one has found a hearer who is not entirely deaf and of slow and stupid intelligence. But to comprehend such a magnitude with the mind is absolutely impossible, not only for the lazy and sluggish, and those who incline downward, but even for great and noble men endowed with the love of God, and for all mortals alike, over whom this fog and the coarseness of the flesh cast darkness in relation to the knowledge of the truth. And I do not know whether even to the more sublime and intelligent natures this is denied; which, because they are joined more closely to God and shine with all that splendor, they may perhaps be able to discern, if not entirely, at ^C least more fully and solidly than we, and some more than others, according to the proportion of their order.

Let this, then, be laid down here; but as for us, not only does the peace of God surpass all mind and comprehension, nor all those things which are laid up in divine promises for those who have cultivated righteousness, which can neither be seen by the eyes, nor heard by the ears, nor contemplated by the mind, at least for a moment, nor even the accurate understanding of creation (for you must be persuaded that you hold only the shadows of this, when you hear: "I will see the heavens, the works of your fingers, the moon and the stars," and the firm and stable reason that is in them, as if not seeing them now, but about to behold them at some time): but much more that nature which is ^D more sublime than these, and from which these have drawn their origin, exceeds all capacity and comprehension. And I would not wish these words to be taken as if it could be per

perfectly stated what God is, but rather what is his nature and quality. For our preaching is not empty, nor is our faith vain; nor is it what we claim (lest you again twist what we have honestly and candidly said into an argument of impiety and calumny, and arrogantly insult us for confessing our ignorance). For it is of the utmost importance that you be firmly convinced that something exists, or what at last that thing is, when you have finally attained the knowledge of it.

From the same oration.

For what at last will you consider God to be, if you have any faith at all in arguments derived from reason? Or to what at last will this argument lift you, if it be examined more accurately? I call upon you, I say, who claim for yourself the leadership of philosophy and theology, and boast yourself in things beyond measure. Will you say he is a body? But how can that which is immense, infinite, shapeless, intangible, and invisible be such? Or do these qualities also pertain to bodies? Oh, what presumption! For this is not the nature of bodies. Or will you maintain that he is a body, yet deny that he is immense and infinite and the rest of the same kind? O grossness! So that God possesses no advantage over us. For what reason can be offered why he should be cultivated and adored, if he is circumscribed? Or what cause can we assign why he should not be composed of elements, and reduced again into them, or even perish altogether? For composition is the beginning of conflict; conflict, of division; and division, of dissolution: but dissolution does not in any way apply to God and that primary nature. Therefore, no division is to be admitted, lest dissolution follow; nor conflict, lest division arise; nor composition, lest conflict exist. And consequently, he is not a body, lest it be necessary that he also be a compound. Thus the discourse, returning from the last things to the first, comes to a stand.

^C But how, then, shall we be able to maintain what Scripture says, that God pervades and fills all things, according to that word: "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" saith the Lord; and, "The Spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole world," if God in part circumscribes and is in part circumscribed? For either he will pass through the empty void of the universe, and all things will perish for us, so that God would be insulted, being both a body and lacking those things which he created: or he will be a body within bodies, which is impossible: or he will be intertwined and opposed, just as those things which are endowed with liquidity are mixed with each other; and the one will divide and in turn be divided by the others, which is more absurd and dotardly than even the atoms of Epicurus; and thus this discourse will collapse for us, and this argument, by which we attempt to attribute a body to God, will have neither body nor anything solid. But if they shall contend that he is a body devoid of matter—if indeed that fifth element, as some have supposed, and which is moved in a circular motion; let there be some immaterial and fifth body, or even if they wish, also something incorporeal, according to their own autonomous path of discourse and invention; for nothing further—

^A regarding this matter shall I hold a dispute with them at the present time. But in what genus, pray, will those things be which are moved and agitated by motion, to say nothing for the moment of how grievous an insult it is to assert that the Creator is impelled by motion in the same way as the things created by Him, and that He, by whose power and will the things that are created revolve, is—if they are even going to grant this—also moved and carried around in the same way with them? I ask also, what is it that moves this universe? And what, in turn, is it that moves that, and again from what is that moved? And in the same way I shall proceed to infinity. How also can it be that it is not in a place at all, if indeed it is carried and impelled by motion? Now, if they have decided that some other body, besides that fifth one, is God, if indeed an angelic one: whence will they prove that angels consist of a body, and of what body, pray? And how much, if things are so, will God excel the angel, whom He uses as a minister? If they should say that it is some body more sublime than these, again a ^B rank of bodies devoid of reason will be introduced, and a gulf of trifles so deep that no foot can ever be planted.

Thus, then, it is clear that God is not a body. Nor has any one of those who have been divinely inspired yet said this, or approved of it having been said by others, nor is this doctrine of our flock. It remains, therefore, that we consider God to be incorporeal. But, however much we may call Him incorporeal, this does not yet comprehend and declare His nature and essence; just as neither does "unbegotten," nor "anarchic" (that is, devoid of a beginning), nor "immutable," nor "incorruptible," and all the other things ^C that are predicated of God, or about God. For what profit is there for indicating His nature and the subsistence in which He exists, if you say that He has no beginning, and that He never departs from Himself, nor is included by any limits? Yet we leave the whole of His essence to be discussed and inquired into by him who truly has knowledge of God, and is more perfect in contemplation. For just as it is not enough to say "body," or "concreated," to express and indicate this or that to which these attributes are adjacent—but it must also be said what the thing subject to these is, if we intend, in what we think of, to represent it fully and abundantly (for it could be man, or ox, or horse, this thing which we pronounce ^D to be corporeal and concreated and corruptible)—in the same way, whoever takes it upon himself to inquire more curiously into the nature of God will not rest here, by saying what God is *not*, but this also must be added by him, that he should expound *what* He is; and this all the more so, because it is less difficult to conceive of one thing in the mind than to remove all things by denying them one by one, so that, by rejecting those things which He is not, and by establishing that which He is, that which we think of may be comprehended. But he who pronounces what a certain thing is *not*, while in the meantime remaining silent as to *what* it is, is not unlike him who, when asked how much twice five is, replies that they are indeed not two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor, to sum it up briefly, any number below or above ten, but does not say that they are ten, nor does he bind the mind of the one asking to the thing being sought. For it is much easier and more compendious to declare all the things that a thing is *not* from having said *what* it is, than to indicate *what* it is by removing what it is *not*. Or is this not clear to everyone?

Since, therefore, it is established for us that the Divine is incorporeal, let us examine a little further. Is it nowhere, or is it somewhere? For if it is nowhere, one of those who are overly inquisitive might ask how it can even be. For if that which is not is nowhere, then that which is nowhere is perhaps not even. But if you say that it is somewhere, it must undoubtedly—since it *is*—be either in the universe or above the universe. If it is in the universe, it is either in some part of it, or it is everywhere. And if it is in some part, it will be circumscribed by a smaller entity, that is, that part. But if it is everywhere, it will be contained by something larger and much more vast—I mean, the contained will be contained by the container. If the universe is to be contained by the universe, there would be no place free from circumscription. These, then, are the results if it is in the universe. And where was it, before the whole universe came into existence? For this, too, is no small difficulty. But if they say that it is above the universe, what then? Was there nothing that separated it from the universe? And where was that which was above the universe? And how could that which was more sublime be distinguished from that which was inferior, when there was no boundary that separated and distinguished them? Is it not absolutely necessary that there be some middle, by which, as a boundary, the universe is separated from that which is above the universe? And what else would this be but the place that we have already excluded? For I do not even mention here that it is impossible for God not to be circumscribed if He can be comprehended by the mind and thought; for comprehension itself is a sort of circumscription.

From the same discourse.

^C Why, then, have I gone through these things, perhaps more curiously than the hearing of the common people can bear, and contrary to the mode of discourse that prevails in this age (a mode that, having despised simple and ingenuous treatment of divine matters and held it for nothing, has introduced a crafty and convoluted style of speaking; so that, indeed, the tree is known by its fruits, I mean that the spirit which is black and dark, the bringer of such dogmas, is recognized by this fog of disputation)? For this was not done by me so that I might myself seem to say paradoxical things and appear exceedingly wise, weaving knots and untying what is constrained—which was indeed the great miracle of Daniel—but that I might demonstrate that which I began by saying at the beginning of my discourse: namely, that God is beyond the grasp of human intellect, and cannot be conceived or formed in the mind in the totality of what He is. And this is not out of envy (for envy is far from the divine nature, which is free from all passion, and is alone good and sovereign, and especially toward that which, of all things created by Him, He holds in the greatest esteem. For what is in a prior place and rank according to the Word than those things which received reason and the faculty of speech? Since this very fact—that they exist—is an argument for a certain supreme divine goodness), nor [was it done] so that from this, for the honor of Him who is full,

and from the fact that mortals are unable to reach knowledge of Him, a greater honor and veneration might return unto Him. For it is clearly sophistic and foreign, I will not say to God, but to a man gifted with at least moderate integrity and candor, and conscious of a certain natural honesty, to arrogate to himself precedence while hindering others.

^A But for other causes as well, those who are closer and more intimately joined to God might see, and might be inspectors and contemplators of His unsearchable judgments—if indeed there are any who are raised to such a magnitude of virtue, and who walk in the footsteps of the abyss, as the proverb says. Yet, as far as we, who measure things difficult to contemplate with small measures, can attain by conjecture, three causes for this thing may be brought forward. The first is, perhaps, that there might not be, because of the ease of obtaining it, a subsequent easy loss of the thing sought. For it usually happens that what is gained not without labor and industry is maintained more tightly; whereas what is gotten with no effort is very quickly cheapened and cast away, as something that can be recovered; and thus, that benefit—the one not easily obtained—accrues [as a benefit] at least among those who are prudent. The second is that the same thing might not happen to us as happened to that fallen Lucifer; ^B that is, lest we be filled with all that brilliance and lift up our neck against the Lord Almighty, and through pride fall in a manner most wretched and calamitous. The last is that those who have purged themselves here from the stain of vices, and have awaited the beloved and desired object with patient souls, may have something more abundant as a reward for their industrious and illustrious life. For this reason, this bodily darkness is interposed between us and God; not otherwise than that cloud * of old between the Egyptians and the Hebrews. And perhaps that Scripture refers to this: He made darkness His hiding place, * that is, our thickness, by which it happens that few at all, and they only to a very small degree, see through. But let those who care for this study and philosophize more accurately, and let them be carried forward by a very lofty contemplation. To us, however, who are held bound by chains of earth, * to use the words of Jeremiah, and are covered by this gross flesh, ^C this is clear: that just as it is impossible by any reasoning that anyone, however much he may urge his pace, should pass his own shadow (for as much as you approach it, by so much it always outruns [you]), or that an eye should be joined to things falling into view without intervening light and air, or that fish should swim outside the water; so too it is impossible for those who are included in bodies to be joined at all to those things which are understood by mind and reason, without the aid of bodily and sensible things. For always, something sensible of our own affairs happens to intervene, however much our mind, having been abstracted from things that fall into view and collected into itself, may have struggled to attain and perceive related things that flee the keenness of the eyes.

From the same oration

^D Whatever God is in His nature and essence, no man has ever found, nor can anyone find. But whether anyone will at some time find Him, let him who wishes seek and explore this. In my opinion, he will then at last find this, when this deiform and divine thing—that is, our mind and reason—shall have been joined with its kindred nature, and when the image shall have ascended * Rom. xi, 33. * Job xxxviii, 16. * Isa. xiv, 12. * Exod. xiv, 20. * Psal. xvii, 12. * Thren. iii, 34.

e been joined with its kindred nature, and when the image shall have ascended to its archetype, which it now desires. And this seems to me to be the very height of philosophy: that we should one day be known, just as we have been known. But for the present, whatever reaches us is but a small outflow, and as it were a tiny ray of a great light. ^A So that if anyone has known God, or has even been testified to have known Him, he has known Him only in so far as he has been a participant in a richer splendor than the one who has received less light from above. Thus this superabundance has been deemed a perfect knowledge, not because it is measured by the truth of the thing itself, but by the capacity and ability of one's neighbor.

For this reason Enos indeed had the hope that he might call upon the Lord: ^B where you see that hope alone is praised, and that, not of knowledge, but of invocation. Regarding Enoch, although he was translated, it is not yet clear whether he comprehended the nature of God, or whether he is to comprehend it. Now to Noah, to whom the care of preserving the entire world from the peril of the waters was entrusted, or rather the seeds of the world, fleeing the flood in a small wooden vessel, this praise alone was attained, that he was pleasing and acceptable to God. Furthermore, that great patriarch Abraham was indeed justified by faith, ^C and offered a new and unheard-of sacrifice, bearing the image of that great one: but he did not behold God as God, but he entertained Him as a man; and therefore he was praised because he venerated Him as much as he perceived Him. For what shall I say of Jacob, who, although he saw in his dreams a certain lofty ladder and angels ascending, and anointed a pillar not without some mystery (perhaps to signify the stone anointed for the sake of our salvation), and in honor of Him whom he had seen, gave to a certain place the name of the house of God, and engaged in a struggle with God as if with a man—whatever that struggle between God and man might be? For by these words perhaps nothing else is indicated than the comparison of human virtue with the divine, and the signs of the struggle, which would demonstrate that the created nature was overcome, ^D and he bore in his body the marks of that struggle, and finally received a change of name as a reward for his piety, being called, in place of Jacob, Israel—that truly great and honorable name. Yet neither he, nor anyone more exalted than he, down to this very day, among all the twelve tribes of which he was the father, has been able to boast and magnificently proclaim that he has comprehended the whole nature of God in his mind.

Nor, indeed, did the violent spirit, or the fire, or the earthquake, as is revealed in the monuments of sacred history, shadow forth the presence of God to Elijah, but rather a certain soft breeze, and not His nature itself. I speak of Elijah, whom a chariot of fire also raised to heaven, signifying, as I suppose, a certain singular virtue of man, and one exceeding the human height. What? Do not that judge Manoah, and the apostle Peter, fill you with admiration? One of whom could not bear even the sight of God, who appeared to him through an image, and on account of this, said: "We have perished, O woman, for we have seen God," as if He were not able to be contained by men, not even by a divine appearance, let alone by His nature.

^A Another refused to admit even the visible Christ into the boat, and sent Him away. And this is all the more wonderful, seeing that he surpassed others in the fervor of his soul for the knowledge of Christ, and for this reason was called blessed, and was entrusted with the greatest things.

Why should I mention Isaiah and Ezekiel, the beholder of the greatest things, and the rest of the prophets? Of whom one saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne of glory, ^B and Him surrounded by the six-winged seraphim, and praised, and hidden, and himself purified by the coal, and prepared for the prophetic office. The other describes also the vehicle of God, that is, the cherubim, and the throne above them, and the firmament above it, and Him who was appearing in the firmament, and certain voices, and impulses, and actions. And whether these things were some daytime phantasm, visible only to the saints, or a true vision of the night, or a configuration of the governing faculty occurring to those who were to come as if they were present, or some other ineffable kind of prophecy, I cannot say; but the God of the prophets knows, and those who are moved by such inspirations. However, neither those of whom I speak, nor anyone else of the same order, stood in the substance and essence of the Lord, as Scripture says, nor did he see or explain or disclose the nature of God.

^C But if it had been permitted to Paul to divulge to mortals those things which the third heaven, and the progress, or ascent, or assumption up to that point, had shown him, perhaps we would know something more about God, if indeed this were the mystery of his being caught up. But since these things were unutterable, let them be honored by us with silence as well. Let us hear only Paul himself saying: "We know in part, and we prophesy in part." He who is no stranger to knowledge confesses these and suchlike things—he who threatens to give proof of Christ speaking in him, that great champion of the truth, and teacher. ^D For this reason, he places all earthly knowledge no higher than mirrors and riddles, as something standing only in the small shadows of the truth. And if I am not thought by some to be excessively curious and troublesome in examining such things, I would say that there might be nothing other than these things, which Christ Himself once denied could be borne in this life, as things to be borne and declared someday; and which John, the forerunner of the Word, the great voice of the truth, declared could not even be grasped by the world.

From the same discourse.

In truth, all is truth, and every discourse is hard to grasp and hard to behold; and as if with a small instrument we are attempting to accomplish great things, hunting for the knowledge of beings with human wisdom, and to those…

^A things that pertain to the senses, or not without the senses, by which we are carried about and led astray, and when we happen upon things with a naked mind, we are not able the more truly to approach the truth and to have the mind fashioned by those graspings. But the discourse concerning God, in as much as it is more perfect, is by so much the more difficult to attain, and has more perceptions and more laborious solutions. For every obstacle, even if it be very slight, blocks and hinders the course of the discourse and interrupts its forward movement, just as those who suddenly pull back horses running with the reins, and turn them backward by the unexpected and sudden jarring. Thus, surely, Solomon, who in wisdom surpassed all who had been before him and his own contemporaries, and who received the largeness of heart as a gift of God, and a flow of contemplation more abundant than potential sand—in as much as he penetrates more into the depths, by so much the more does he grow dizzy, and he makes some end to wisdom, ^B namely, by finding how much it fled from him. In a similar way, Paul also attempts to reach—I do not say the nature of God, for he knew that this was altogether impossible—but at least to attain to the judgments of God by knowledge. But since he found no outcome, nor any place where he could fix and establish his ascent, nor could the curious investigation of his own mind be closed by any clear end, because he saw that something was always remaining: O, the wonder and the stupor! (that I myself might be moved by the same feeling) he surrounds his discourse with admiration, and calls that the wealth and the depth of God, and ingenuously confesses that the judgments of God cannot be perceived or comprehended by any intellect, using almost the same words as David, who at one time calls the judgments of God a great abyss, the bottom ^C of which can be grasped by neither measure nor sense; and at another time proclaims that the knowledge of oneself and from one's own constitution has been made wonderful, and so robust that we are unable to grasp and embrace it with our own powers.

For, he says, that I may let other things be and look to myself and all human nature and frame, what is this mixture of ours? What is the motion? How is the immortal conjoined with the mortal? How do I flow downward and am carried upward? How is the soul carried about? How does it impart life and become a participant of passion? How is the mind at once circumscribed and uncircumscribed, ^D remaining in us and traversing all things with the speed of motion and flow? How is the work of speech perceived in turn and communicated, and how does it walk through the air and enter in with the things themselves? How does it have communion with the senses, and then again draw itself together away from the senses? And, to speak of what are prior, what is our first fashioning and constitution in the workshop of nature? And what is the final formation and perfection? What is the desire and distribution of food? And what brought me to the first springs, and to the sources of living automatically? How is the body nourished by foods and the soul by the Word—

^A or what is the impulse of nature, and the relation between those who beget and those who are begotten, so that they may be held together by affection? How is it that the forms remain stable, while being distinct by their characteristics, when there are so many of them that their specific properties are beyond our grasp? How is the same animal both mortal and immortal, mortal by the reason of migration, but immortal by the reason of procreation? For as one is removed by death, so another is substituted back in its place, just like the flow of a river, which is at once flowing and stable. One could still philosophize much about the limbs and parts, and their harmony with one another, ^B both for their need and for their beauty, being constituted together and separated, running and being surpassed, united and divided, containing and being contained by the law and reason of nature. Many things about voices and hearing: how some are carried through the vocal organs, and others are received, being mixed with one another through the striking and impression of the air in between. Many things about sight, which in an ineffable way has commerce with the things we see, and by volition alone is moved at the same time, and is affected in the same way as the mind. For with equal speed, the mind is joined to intelligible things, and sight to visible things. Many things besides about the other senses, ^C which are, as it were, receivers of external things, not contemplated by reason. Many things about the rest we enjoy in sleep, and the fashioning of dreams, about memory and recollection, about reason and anger, and desire, and to speak concisely, all things by which this little world, that is, man, is governed.

Of the same, from the oration on the modesty to be observed in disputations.

How does fear constrict, and confidence release; how does sorrow contract, pleasure spread, envy waste away, pride puff up, and hope lift up? How does anger drive toward fury, and how does shame suffuse with a blush—the one when the blood boils, the other when it withdraws; and how are the marks of the passions imprinted on bodies, and who is the commander of reason, and how does it preside over all these things and tame the movements of the passions? How is the immaterial grasped by blood and breath, and how is the cessation of these the departure of the soul? These things, or any ^A of these, O man, comprehend with your understanding (for I do not yet mention the nature or movement of heaven, nor the order of the stars, nor the mixture of the elements, nor the differences among living creatures, nor the lower and more sublime degrees of the heavenly powers, and everything into which the creative Word is distributed, nor the principles of providence and governance; and even then I will not say, "Take courage," but rather, "Still fear to approach things that are more sublime and that more greatly exceed your power").

By the same. From the Great Apologetic Oration.

The heaven is high, and the earth is deep; who shall ascend of those who have been cast down by sin? Who, being still encompassed by earthly darkness and wrapped in the thick garment of the body, will be able to behold the whole mind clearly ^B with his whole mind, and to be mingled with those who stand, and with the invisible in the midst of the unstable and the finite? For it is with difficulty that even one of those here, even of those who are highly purified, might see even an image of the good, just as those who behold the sun in the water. Who is he who has measured the water with his hand, and the heaven with a span, and the whole earth with his palm? Who has set the mountains with a scale, and the valleys with a balance? What is the place of his rest, and to what among all things shall he be likened? Who is he who made all things by his Word, and by his wisdom fashioned man, and brought those things that are sundered into one, and mixed the dust with the spirit, and composed a creature visible and invisible, ^C temporary and immortal, earthly and heavenly, touching God and not grasping Him, drawing near and moving away? "I said, I will be wise," says Solomon, "and it departed from me far beyond what it was"—referring to wisdom. And truly, he who adds knowledge adds sorrow, not receiving greater joy from what he has learned than pain from what he could not attain—a thing which is accustomed to happen to those who, still thirsty, are pulled away from the water, or to those who think they hold something which they cannot attain, or those whom the splendor of lightning has passed by more quickly than it illuminated them. This thought ^D depressed me and made me humble, and persuaded me that it is better to listen to the voice of praise than to be an interpreter of things beyond one's power. For the majesty, and the height, and the dignity, and the pure natures, scarcely being able to contain the brightness of God, whom the abyss covers, whose darkness is a hiding place, he being the purest of light, and inaccessible to the majority—he who is in this All, and is outside of the All—all of which is good, and above every good, which mind

^A illuminates; yet it eludes the speed and height of the mind, always retreating as much as it is comprehended, and by its fleeing it draws the lover upwards, and is stolen away, as it were, while being held.

Item: that the divine nature cannot be comprehended. From the book of Chrysostom, which contains the orations in which he demonstrates that God is incomprehensible.

It is a great vice not to remain within the ^B boundaries which God has prescribed for us, but to seek to scrutinize those things that surpass our mind. Thus, indeed, the first-formed man, while desiring greater things, lost even what he possessed. Therefore, saying much in favor of our own reasoning (for the reasonings of men, he says, are cowardly, and their thoughts fallacious), let us not wish to overstep the measure of the capacity allotted to us.

Of the same.

"Thy knowledge," he says, "has become wonderful from me; it has been exalted, I shall not be able to attain to it" (Ps. CXXXVIII, 6). The Prophet, feeling dizzy ^C at the depth of the wisdom of God, does anyone dare to say that he knows the nature of God? He who says, "The uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast manifested to me" (Ps. L, 8)—crying out that "of his understanding there is no number," that is, no comprehension—is someone bold enough to speak concerning the incomprehensible nature? What are you saying? Is the wisdom of God incomprehensible, and is his nature comprehensible? Does his greatness not have an end, and yet you circumscribe his essence? This ^D is manifest madness.

Of the same.

Isaiah saying, "Who shall declare his generation?" (Isa. LIII, 8)—will he grant it to you to explain his essence? And Paul, who was caught up as far as the third heaven, and was deemed worthy to see supernatural and ineffable mysteries, while examining a small part of the providence of God, namely how he cast off the Jews and accepted the Gentiles, as if he were in danger in the deep sea, immediately leaped out, and with great admiration vehemently exclaimed, saying: "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways inscrutable!" (Rom. XI, 33). And he did not say that they are incomprehensible, but, much more, that his judgments are unsearchable, and his ways are inscrutable. If, then, his judgments are unsearchable and his ways inscrutable, shall we then comprehend God himself, whose judgments we cannot search out and investigate? And why do I speak of judgments and ways, when the rewards of the saints cannot be understood? "For eye," he says, "did not see, and ear did not hear, and they did not ascend into the heart of man, which God prepared for those who love him" (1 Cor. II, 9). And what of the fact that his gift is ineffable? For grace, he says...

be to God for his ineffable gift. And his peace surpasses every mind, and is he the only one who is ^A comprehended? And elsewhere Paul says, "We know in part," and do you claim to know completely? But when he said "in part," he did not mean that he knew one part of the divine nature and was ignorant of another, but that he has a partial knowledge, and that he knows that God is, but what God is, he is ignorant of. And he knows that he is Creator, and wise, and omnipotent, and the holder of all things, and such like, but the extent, and how, he does not know.

*Of the same.* The angels merely praise God, some saying, "Glory to God in the highest," ^B and others, "Blessed be the glory of his place from his holy place," that is, wherever he may be. For there is no "place" regarding God, for the Divinity is uncircumscribed. And others say, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth." But men pry into his nature. How much fear is above, how much contempt is below! They speak with reverence, while these are audaciously curious.

*Of the same.* Isaiah says again: "I saw the Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up," that is, incomprehensible. ^C Is the throne higher than the human mind, and is he who is on the throne to be comprehended? "And the Seraphim stood around him; six wings were to the one, and six wings to the one; and with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet." The Seraphim turn away their faces and deploy their wings as a double wall, because they cannot endure the lightning that leaps forth fearfully from the glory of his throne, and they cover their feet due to their amazement. For we, too, are accustomed, when we are seized by immense wonder, to draw our bodies in from all sides. And why do I say the body? Indeed, the soul itself, when it suffers this, draws its energies from the extreme surface ^D into the depths and retreats, as if wrapping itself in the body as a covering from all sides. Use the need for four wings to understand; now understand the use of the remainder: "And with two," he says, "they flew." This is a sign of a constant yearning for sublime things, and that they never look downward. For wings signify the lightness and swiftness of the angelic nature. There is also another reason: that with two they cover the head, and with two the feet, they indicate that God’s beginning and end are invisible and unsearchable. But they flew with the middle ones, teaching that one should theologize concerning the middle things. For instance, that he is God, that he is wise, that he is omnipotent, and the like. "And one called to another: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth." This is a sign of amazement, even though they did not see the light, nor the divine nature, but what was seen was a condescension. And yet they could not bear the glory of the condescension. For condescension is when God, not as he is,

by nature, offers himself to be seen, but, having regard to the imbecility of those who behold him, humbles and accommodates himself to their weakness. That it was indeed a condescension is evident from the very words. For he says, "I saw the Lord," but no man has ever seen God, seeing that he has neither form, nor quantity, nor quality. Who says this? "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him" [John 1:18]. Then he adds, "sitting." God neither sits nor stands; for such configurations belong to bodies. Then he adds, "upon a throne." God is not encompassed by a throne. For how could he be, since he cannot be circumscribed? Since, therefore, the Seraphim are standing—which signifies not a place, but their familiarity born of purity—and yet cannot fix their eyes upon the glory of the condescension, do men attempt to fix their eyes upon the glory of his essence, which is far more inaccessible? And yet, as much as a blind man differs from one who has the power of sight, so much is the difference between us and them. ^B

*Of the same.* The prophet Daniel did not endure the condescending aspect of the angel, but fled and fell down: "There is no strength left in me," says he, "and my glory is turned into corruption" [Dan. 10:8]—that is, the beauty of my face was destroyed, and turned into the pallor of a corpse. But you, who are as much inferior to Daniel as he yields to the angel, do you dare to open your mouth and be inquisitive about the divine nature? Daniel, who in a human body accomplished things that surpass human powers, did not sustain the condescension of a fellow-servant, and have you grasped that nature which brought forth the myriads of angels, of whom Daniel could not endure to look upon a single one, as has been shown? Who would not groan, who would not lament the stupidity and madness of man? ^C

*Of the same.* Hear what the prophets philosophize about God, and shudder and tremble with fear: "Who looks upon the earth, and makes it tremble. Who touches the mountains, and they smoke" [Psa. 103:32]. "The sea saw it, and fled; the Jordan was turned back" [Psa. 113:3]. "Who shakes the heaven from its foundations. Who threatens the sea, and dries it up" [Nahum 1:4]. "Who established the heaven like an arch, and stretched it out like a curtain over the earth" [Isa. 40:22]. "And who made the earth as nothing." O what an admirable hyperbole! A thing so great and so such, as nothing. For this word "as nothing" indicates the ease of creation. These things and others of the same kind the prophets speak, so that from the magnitude of the things that have been made, and from the ease of their creation, we might be able to obtain some notion worthy of God’s power. ^D

*Of the same.* "Who holds," he says, "the circle of the earth, and those who dwell in it are as locusts; and all the nations are as a drop from a bucket before him" [Isa. 40:22]. Pay attention with accuracy. For what the prophets say, God says. And God would say nothing superfluous or vain,

^A nor even incidental. Consider the myriad nations of the earth, whose names it is not even possible to enumerate. If, therefore, all of them together are as a drop from a bucket, what portion of this drop do you imagine yourself to be, and how can you be meddlesome towards God, before whom all the nations are as a drop from a bucket?

Of the same.

Myriads of myriads of angels ministering above, and thousands of thousands standing by, and Thrones, and Dominions, and Principalities, and Powers, and infinite hosts of incorporeal virtues, and countless tribes, and yet He created all these powers with such ease, as cannot be expressed in words. For even as the act of willing is most easy for us, so is the power of creating for Him. And indicating this, the Prophet said: "Our God is in heaven and on earth; he has done all things whatsoever he willed" [Ps. 113:11, LXX]. Do you not bury yourself in the earth, having puffed yourself up into such folly instead of merely wondering? "If I am a Father," He says, "where is my honor? And if I am a Lord, where is my fear?" [Mal. 1:6]. For he who fears, only honors and praises and worships, but does not meddle or inquire in vain.

Of the same.

"Dwelling in light unapproachable," it says [1 Tim. 6:16]. The house is unapproachable, but He who dwells in it can be approached. Now Paul said this, not so that you might suspect a house and a place for the incomprehensible God, but that you might learn from the superabundance of the [expression] the incomprehensibility of the divine nature. And he did not even call the house incomprehensible, but unapproachable, which is much greater than that which is incomprehensible. And again, therefore: "Who are you to answer back to God?" [Rom. 9:20]. He restrains those who inquire too curiously into the reasons for God’s governance, and do you meddle with the sublime nature which governs them? How is this not the extreme of madness? How is this not worthy of a myriad of thunderbolts?

Of the same.

Paul says again: "I do not consider myself to have comprehended" [Philip. 3:13]. What are you saying, Paul? You have Christ speaking within you, and you do not consider yourself to have comprehended? "Yes," he says, "I do so consider, because I have Christ speaking within me, instructing me to consider it so." Paul, who has Christ speaking within himself, does not consider that he has apprehended—not even those things pertaining to the end—but believes only, seeking nothing anxiously; and do you meddle with the nature of God? And by saying that he did not consider himself to have comprehended, he intimated that he had indeed comprehended, but not the whole. And elsewhere he says: "If anyone thinks he knows anything, he has not yet known anything as he ought to know" [1 Cor. 8:2]—as much as saying that he does know, but not completely.

Of the same.

Then you are ignorant of your own nature, to say nothing of the heaven and earth, and the things in between, and while passing over all other things, you run back to the most supernatural nature of God.

You do not know the essence of your own soul—and why do I say essence?—you do not even know how it is in your body. What then, you will say, does it not extend to the bulk of the body? By no means; for extension belongs to the body, not to the soul. For very often, with the hands or feet amputated, the soul remains whole in the maimed body. What, you will say, does it not extend to all parts of the body? And yet it seems that it ought to extend. Otherwise, those parts to which the soul did not reach would be dead. For what is devoid of soul is completely dead. But one cannot say even this. Consequently, you know that it is in the body, but you are ignorant of the "how." Then, being so clearly ignorant of yourself, do you know your own Maker, ^A what His nature is? "Seek not," he says, "what is more difficult than you, and do not investigate what is stronger than you," not only concerning the nature of God, or of angels, or of men, but not even concerning inanimate things. For if you wish to enter into an inquiry of created things, throwing yourself into an Euripus of reasoning and waves creating a great storm, and casting your soul into a shipwreck, you will not only learn nothing more, being unable to find the grounds for each thing, but you will also slander many things that presently seem excellent to you, being whirled into the opposite by the weakness of your reasoning. ^B

*Of the same.*

"That the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known," he says, "through the Church to the Principalities and Powers in the heavenly places." Do you hear Paul saying that now with us, and through us, and not before, the powers above have known the secrets of the great King? For lest you should think that he calls the demons Principalities and Powers, he added "in the heavenly places," where demons cannot ascend. Then, if the heavenly powers did not previously know his partial wisdom, that which concerns the Incarnation and the calling of the Gentiles, and you now have grasped it yourself? "For no one knows the things of God except ^C the Spirit of God." And "No one has seen the Father except He who is from God," that is to say, the Son. For the word "no one" is set in contrast to created beings, both in the case of the Spirit and in the case of the Son, walling off such knowledge from every creaturely nature, both visible and invisible; and do you insert yourself into this, as if you had been born superior to these natures?

Item: That the divine nature is incomprehensible. Of Damascene. Chapter 1.

"No one has seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." The divine, therefore, is unexplainable and incomprehensible. For no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father. And the Holy Spirit also knows the things of God, just as the spirit of man knows the things in him. But after the first and ^D blessed nature, no one, of those born of man...

humanity alone, but from those virtues which are more sublime than the world, or from the cherubim, or the seraphim, has anyone ever known God, unless God Himself has revealed and indicated Himself. Nor, however, has God left us in total ignorance of Himself. For in all men, that knowledge that God exists is naturally implanted by Him. Moreover, the universe and its preservation and governance proclaim the greatness of the divine nature. Further, both through the law and the prophets previously, and then also through His Only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, God has revealed to us the knowledge of Himself to the extent that we were able to grasp it. Therefore, all things that have been delivered to us through the law, the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists, we accept, and we know, and we revere, inquiring nothing further than these. For God, being good, is the bestower of every good thing, and is subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from that divine nature, since it is impassible and alone good. As He therefore knows all things, and provides what is beneficial for each, He revealed that which it was useful for us to know; but that which we could not bear, He kept silent. Let us be content with these, and let us remain in them, not removing the eternal landmarks, nor overstepping the divine tradition. ^B

The Same. Chapter 2.

It behooves one, therefore, who intends either to speak or to hear something about God, to know clearly that neither can all things be ineffable, nor are all things utterable, both regarding theology and the economy. Nor, indeed, are all things unknown, nor are all things known. But one thing is for a thing to be knowable, and another for it to be utterable; just as it is one thing to speak, and another to know. Therefore, many things concerning God are perceived ^C through a thin and obscure knowledge, and they cannot be expressed properly and fitly. Thus, when we speak of things that are above us, we are compelled to use words that are congruent to us. From which it comes about that we attribute to God sleep and wrath and security, and hands and feet, and such like.

That God is without beginning, without end, perpetual, eternal, uncreated, immovable, immutable, simple, incomposite, without body; and that He can neither be seen, nor touched, nor circumscribed, nor comprehended by thought or in any way; that He is good, just, omnipotent; that He created all things, governs all things, sees all things, counsels and provides for all things; has power over all things, and is the judge of all—this we both know and confess. Furthermore, ^D that God is one, that is, one essence, and is known and exists in three persons—I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are in all respects one, except for the unbegottenness, and the generation, and the procession; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, through His own bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good will of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, conceived without seed, incorruptibly from the

conceived, and without corruption born of the holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary; and that the same is perfect God at once, and perfect man from two natures, deity and humanity; and in two natures acting with their own will, energy, and sovereign power, and to speak simply, having these perfectly according to the definition and account proper to each, I mean to deity and humanity, in one composite hypostasis; and that He hungered, and thirsted, and grew weary, and was crucified, and experienced death and burial, and rose on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, from whence He came to us, and will come again hereafter, the divine Scripture is witness, and the whole choir of the saints. But what the essence of God is, or how He is in all things, or how God is begotten or proceeds from God, ^B or how the only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself, became man from virginal blood, being fashioned by a law outside of nature, or how He walked on the waters with dry feet, we neither know nor are able to explain. It is not possible, therefore, to say anything about God, or to conceive of Him at all, beyond those things which have been divinely revealed or spoken to us by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testaments.

TITULUS V. On Divine Appellation, from the Areopagite’s book Of the Divine Names.

The theologians, therefore, knowing these things, celebrate God both as nameless and as having every name. As nameless, when they say that the Godhead itself, appearing in one of the symbolic visions of symbolic theophany, rebuked the one who had asked, "What is thy name?" and, as if leading him away from every knowledge of divine appellation, said, "And why askest thou my name, and this is wonderful?" Is not this truly the wonderful name, the name that is above every name, the nameless one, which is named above every name that is named, ^C whether in this age or in the age to come? But they celebrate Him as having many names when they again introduce Him saying, "I am who I am, the life, the light, the God, the truth." And when those men who excel in divine wisdom call Him, the author of all things, by many names in all created things, as Good, as Beautiful, as Wise, as Beloved, as God of gods, as Lord of lords, as Holy of holies, as Eternal, as Existing, and as Cause of the ages, as Giver of life, as Wisdom, as Mind, as Reason, as Knower, as Him who surpasses all the treasures of all knowledge, as Power, ^D as Potentate, as King of kings, as Ancient of days, as Immutable, and as Ageless, as Salvation, and as Justice, as Sanctification, as Redemption, as Him who surpasses all things in magnitude, and as being in the breeze. And indeed, they say that He is in minds, and in souls, and in bodies, and in heaven, and on earth, and that the same one is at once within the world and above the world.

^A a dew more excellent and superior to the heaven, a cloud, the very stone, and the rock, and all the essences, the sun, the star, the fire, the water, the spirit, and all that exist, and nothing of those things which exist.

Item on the Divine Appelation, from the second oration of the Great Gregory the Theologian on the Son.

The Divinity cannot be expressed by any name. That this is so is shown not only by reasoning, but also by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, as far as one can surmise. For those who honored the Divinity with particular signs, did not even permit other things—those which are after God—to be written with the same letters as God himself, as if it were necessary that God should have nothing in common with our affairs. How, then, could such men have reached the point of declaring that indissoluble nature, which is contained by its own property, by means of a dissoluble voice? For no one has ever fully breathed the air, nor has any mind fully contained, or voice comprehended, the essence of God. But by outlining those things that are about Him, we gather from here and there some dim and weak imagination of the Divinity, and one from another. And he is considered by us the best theologian, not he who has found the whole—for the whole is not bound by any bond—but he who, by contemplating more than another, gathers into himself a greater likeness, or shadow, or whatever we may call the image of the truth. ^B

As far as it is granted to us to attain, "Being" and "God" are in a certain sense more the names of the essence; and of these, the word "Being" is more suitable for indicating it. Not only for this reason—that when He gave his oracle to Moses on the mountain, and Moses asked by what name He should be called, He thus named Himself, saying that he should use these words to the people: "He who is, has sent me" 1—but also because we find that name to be more proper. For although the word "God" (Theos) is derived by those who are clever in such matters from "running" (thein) or "burning" (aithein), because of the perpetual motion and because He consumes vicious habits (for hence He is also called a consuming fire 2), yet it is of the number of those things which are referred to something else, and is not absolute; just as the word "Lord" (Kyrios) is said to be a name of God, and is even called such. For He says: "I am the Lord thy God: this is my name" 3; and, "Lord is His name" 4. But we are seeking the nature which has its being of itself, and is not bound to anything else; for "Being" (to on) is truly proper to God, and is whole, neither bounded nor circumscribed by anything before it or after it (for neither was He, nor will He be). ^C And it does not at all compound with anything else.

But other names consist partly of power and partly of economy, and this latter is twofold: the one higher than the body, and the other joined with the body. For instance, "Almighty" 5 and "King," whether of glory 6, or of the ages 7, or of the powers, or ^D

of the masters. These clearly signify authority. But "God," whether as saving ^B, or of vengeance, or of peace, or of justice, or of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and of all spiritual Israel, and of those who see God; these are the names of the economy. For since we are governed by these three things—namely, by the fear of punishment, by the hope of salvation and glory, and by the cultivation of the virtues through which these are attained—by the name of "vengeances" fear is procured; by that of "salvations," hope; and by that of "virtues," the pursuit of rectitude; so that he who attains any of these, as if bearing God within himself, may hasten more quickly toward perfection and that familiar friendship and kinship which virtue reconciles us to. And these words are common to the Deity. But the name peculiar to Him who is without beginning is "Father"; to Him who is begotten without beginning, "Son"; and to Him who proceeded or progresses without generation, ^C the "Holy Spirit." But let us come to the titles of the Son, which it was our proposal to discuss.

For it seems to me that He is called "Son" because He is the same as the Father in essence, and not only that, but also because He is from Him. And "Only-begotten" not because He is alone from the Alone and solely, but because He is so in a unique manner, not as bodies are. And "Word," because He stands in such relation to the Father as speech does to the mind, not only on account of the impassibility of the generation, but also on account of His conjunction with the Father and His declarative power. Perhaps one might also say that He is called "Word" in the same way as a definition is called a word, in relation to that which is defined. ^D For he who has known the Son (for this is what is meant by "having seen") has known the Father; and the Son is a brief and easy and simple declaration of the Father's nature. For everything that is begotten defines its begetter by a certain silent voice. And if anyone should contend that He is called "Word" because He is present in all things, he would not be straying from reason. For what is there that was not created by the Word? "Wisdom," then, is the knowledge of divine and human things. For how is it possible that the Creator of things should be ignorant of the principles of the things He has created? And "Power," as being the sustainer of the things created, and the one supplying the strength by which these are held together. "Truth," as being one and not many by nature; for the truth is one, but falsehood is many-faceted; and as the pure seal and most truthful character of the Father. And "Image," as being of the same essence as the Father, and because this [the Image] is from Him, but the Father is not from Him; for this is the nature of an image, to be an imitation of the archetype of which it is named, although here the image reflects its exemplar more expressively. For there, the image of a living and motion-endowed thing is dead and motionless; but here, the image of the living exemplar...

^A is itself also a living image, and differs from the Father much less than Seth from Adam, or any son from his parent. For it is the nature of such simple things that they are not partly like and partly unlike, but present the whole through the whole, and are rather the same than merely similar.

He is called **Light**, as the splendor of souls, which are purified both by life and by word. For if ignorance and sin are darkness, then knowledge and godly life will assuredly be light. **Life**, because it is light, and the constitution and subsistence of every rational nature: "For in him we live and move and have our being," according to the two-fold faculty of the inspiration and breath; from him we all receive both the vital spirit, and the Holy Spirit, as many as are capable of him, and in as much as we have opened the mouth of our mind. **Justice**, because he distributes rewards and punishments according to merit, and shows himself a judge to those who are under the law and to those who are under grace, to soul and body alike, so that the one might govern and the other be governed, and the better might hold the hegemony over the worse, so that the worse may not rise up against the better. **Sanctification**, as purity, that the pure Divinity may be grasped by purity. ^B **Redemption**, because he asserts those detained by sin into freedom, and gives himself as a ransom for us, that the world may be cleansed. **Resurrection**, as raising us up from here, and leading back those who were deadened by sin to life.

And these things, then, are still common to him who is above us and to him who is for our sake; but now let us come to those things which are properly our own, and belong to his subsequent assumption. He is called **Man**, not only so that he might be grasped by bodies through a body—for otherwise he could not have been grasped because of the incomprehensibility of his nature—but also so that he might sanctify man through himself, becoming like leaven to the whole lump, and uniting to himself that which had been condemned, that he might release the whole from condemnation, becoming all things for all, such as we are, except for sin: body, soul, mind (through which, of course, death had permeated); and what is common from these, man, a visible God because of that which was perceived by the mind. **Son of Man**, both because of Adam and because of the Virgin, ^C from whom he came into existence: from the former as forefather, and from the latter as mother, according to the law of the mother, and not according to the law of generation. **Christ**, because of his divinity: for this is an anointing of humanity, not sanctifying by operation as in other christs, but by the presence of the whole Anointer; the effect of which is that that which anoints is called Man, and that which is anointed becomes God. **Way**, as leading us through himself; **Door**, as an introducer; **Shepherd**, as placing us in a place of pasture, and nurturing us upon waters of rest, and hence guiding us, and fighting for us against the beasts; then also as calling back those that wander, and bringing back those that are lost, and binding up those that are broken, and strengthening the infirm, and keeping the strong and valid, and gathering them into the fold from there, by the ^D reasons of the pastoral science. **Sheep**, as a sacrifice; **Lamb**, as a perfect one; **High Priest**, as an intercessor; **Melchizedek**, as "without mother" regarding what is for our sake, and "without father" regarding what is according to us; and as "without genealogy" regarding his height above: "For who," he says, "shall declare his generation?"

^A As sheep, moreover, as victim: as Lamb, as perfect: as High Priest, as offerer: as Melchizedek, as one who is without mother, in regard to that nature which is higher than ours, and without father, in regard to our own: furthermore also because he is exalted without genealogy. (For who, he says, shall declare his generation?) And besides, as King of Salem, that is, of peace, and King of righteousness, and finally as one receiving tithes from the patriarchs who were valiantly waging war against pestiferous powers.

TITLE VI.

On the creation of God. From the oration of Gregory the Theologian on the birthday of Christ.

Thus, then, the Holy of Holies, which is hidden even from the Seraphim themselves, and is celebrated by them with a triple hymn of holiness, converges into one principality and divinity. But because it did not suffice to the divine goodness to be moved ^B only by its own contemplation, but it behooved that the Good itself should spread abroad and proceed, so that it might communicate itself to more (for this was proper to the supreme goodness), therefore it conceived of the angelic and celestial powers, and the thought was in reality completed by the Word, and perfected by the Spirit. And thus the second splendors, the ministers of the first splendor—whether they be intelligent spirits, or fire being immaterial and bodiless, or any other nature whatever, which should be considered as closest to those mentioned—came into being. I would indeed wish to say that they are not inclined toward evil, and have only the movement toward the good, inasmuch as they are near God, and were the first to shine forth from God himself (for the things here have shone in the second place). But ^C that they are not immovable, but difficult to move, I think and I say, not only because of him who, on account of the splendor with which he was once illuminated, is Lucifer, but now on account of pride is and is called the prince of darkness, but also because of those who fell away with him, and the powers that are under him, who, fleeing the good, became agents of evil, and likewise urge and impel us toward evil.

From the same oration.

By this method, therefore, the intelligible world was composed for him; if it is permitted, in a small discourse, to philosophize upon matters so great. But when the first things were faring well for him, he conceived of a second world, consisting of matter and visible, which is formed and composed from heaven and earth and the things that are between them; ^D praiseworthy indeed for the beauty of the individual things, but more worthy of praise for the harmony and concert by which, both one with another, and all with all, they are beautifully joined and in turn agree, converging into the perfection of one orb. To show that it was in his power, not only to make a nature akin to himself, but also to establish one entirely alien and foreign. For as those intelligent natures, and those that can be perceived by the mind alone, are in a certain way similar to and akin to his greatness, so those which are exposed to the senses are entirely alien and remote from it, and among these, most especially those which lack soul and motion.

^A Mind, therefore, and sense, having thus been distinguished from one another, stood within their own proper boundaries and bore within themselves the magnificence of the creating Word, being silent praisers and clear heralds of Her great work. ^B Yet there was not as yet a blending of both, nor any mixing of opposites, as a mark of greater wisdom and of the luxury regarding natures, nor was the entire wealth of goodness known. Wherefore, desiring to demonstrate this, the Artificer Word creates man, a single living being from both natures, I mean the invisible and the visible. Having received the body from matter which already pre-existed, and having breathed into it from Himself a breath—which indeed Scripture knows as an intelligent soul and an image of God—He set him upon the earth as another world, great in little, another angel, a composite worshiper, an inspector of visible things and a contemplative of invisible things, a king of those on earth while being ruled from above, earthly and heavenly, temporal and immortal, visible and intelligible; ^C as a mean between greatness and lowliness, the same being spirit and flesh: spirit because of grace, flesh because of pride; the one that he might remain and praise his Benefactor, the other that he might suffer, and in suffering be reminded and instructed, becoming ambitious through that greatness—living here as one overseen by God, and being transferred elsewhere, and as the climax of the mystery, becoming deified by his inclination toward God. For to this end the moderate light of truth is granted to me here, both to see and to experience the brightness of God, worthy of Him who both knit us together and will dissolve us, and again will knit us together more magnificently.

From the Oration on the Holy Lights.

^D But since it was necessary that God should be worshiped and adored not only in the heavens, but that there should be some also on earth as His worshipers and adorers, so that—since all things are full of God—all things might be filled with the glory of God, for this reason man is created, honored by the hand of God and by His image.

From the Oration on the Nativity of Christ.

He placed him in paradise (whatever this paradise may have been), and bestowed upon him free will, so that the good might be no less of him who chose it than of him who had provided the seeds. He made him a cultivator of immortal plants—that is, as I believe, of divine contemplations, both simple and perfect—naked in his simplicity and in a life without artifice, and devoid of any covering or projection. For such it was fitting for that first man to be. Then He gave a law, as matter for his free will. That law was a commandment by which it was prescribed to him which plant he should touch and from which he should abstain. But this, from which it was necessary to refrain, was the plant of knowledge, which was indeed neither sown from the beginning with evil intent nor prohibited out of envy (let not the impious wag their tongues there, nor imitate the serpent; rather, it was good when partaken of at the proper time; for the plant was contemplation, according to my view, which only...

those safely approach who are perfect in habit, but not those who are more desirous and intemperate. Just as, moreover, perfect and solid food is of no benefit to those who are still tender and in need of milk.

Item on the creation of God, from the Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, bishop.

^AThat human life is presently among things incongruous is not a sufficient proof that man was never in good circumstances. For since man is the work of God, who brought this animal into existence on account of His goodness, no one would reasonably suspect that he, whose cause of creation was goodness, was created by the Maker in evil circumstances. ^B Rather, there is another cause why these things are now about us, and why we have been bereft of our former state. For He who made man for the participation of His own goods, and implanted in his nature the seeds of all virtues, so that by cultivating each in turn he might be stirred toward His likeness, would not have deprived him of the most beautiful and precious of all goods—I refer to the grace of being master of one's own will and free. For if some necessity had presided over human life, the image would have been falsified in that respect, ^C having been estranged by dissimilarity from the archetype. For how could a nature subjected to necessities and serving them be called an image of the reigning Nature? Therefore, that which in all things had been made like to God, had by all means to possess in its nature what is voluntary and free, so that the participation of goods might be the prize of virtue. From whence, then, you will say, did he who was honored with the most beautiful things of all exchange them for the worse? ^D The explanation regarding this is clear. No origin of evil had its beginning from the divine will; for otherwise evil would be outside of reproach, having God inscribed as its maker and father. But evil somehow grows from without into the choice, being constituted at the time when a withdrawal of the soul occurs from the good. For just as sight is an activity of nature, while blindness is a privation of the natural activity; so virtue and vice have been set in opposition to each other. For it is not possible to conceive of the genesis of vice otherwise than by the absence of virtue. For just as, when light is removed, darkness follows, but when it is present, it does not exist; so, as long as the good is present in nature, evil is non-existent in itself. But the withdrawal of the better becomes the genesis of the contrary. Since, therefore, this is the property of free will—to choose that which pleases it by its own authority—God is not the author of the evils that are present, having established your nature as free and unconstrained, but it is your own recklessness which, having passed over the better, follows that which is worse; indecision, chose the worse instead of the better.

From the same oration.

That the human race would fall away from the good was not unknown to God, who embraces all things by His knowledge, and beholds future things just as present. But as

^A He beheld the turning away, so too He contemplated its calling back again towards the good. Which then was better? Was it to not bring our nature into existence at all, since He foresaw that the one who was to be born would fall away from the good, or to bring it into existence, and once it had fallen ill, to call it back again to its original grace through repentance?

As for calling God the author of evils because of the bodily sufferings which necessarily befall the fluid nature of things, or thinking that He is not the creator of man, lest He be judged also the author of those things which harass and torment us—this is the mark of a mind too narrow and insane, and of men who distinguish good and evil by sense, who do not know that the only good of our nature is that which sense does not perceive, and that the only evil is that which is estranged from the true good. But to distinguish the good from the not-good by pains and pleasures is characteristic of the irrational nature, in which, since they have no mind or intellect, the knowledge of the true good has no place.

Item de opificio Dei, sancti Maximi.

The mind first wonders, thinking upon the divine magnitude in all things, and that sea in which it finds no bottom. Second, it is struck with amazement at how He brought into being the essence of all things from nothing. ^B Let the Greeks therefore go, who say that nothing can come from nothing. But we say that just as there is no limit to the magnificence of the Maker, so neither is there any comprehension of His wisdom and power.

Of the same.

Of things made by God, some are endowed with reason and intellect, and are receptive of opposites, such as virtue and vice, knowledge and ignorance; others are diverse bodies composed of opposites, namely, earth, water, air, and fire. And of these, some are entirely bodiless and immaterial, even if some of them are yoked to a body; others consist only of matter and form.

Of the same.

The reason why God created the universe of things is permitted to be investigated. For He created all things, compelled by goodness, that His kindness might extend to more beings, and that He might communicate with all according to the capacity of each. But how these things are, or why He did not do them sooner, it is forbidden to inquire. For among divine things, some can be comprehended by men, others not at all. For, he says, an unbridled investigation often drives men headlong.

Of the same.

Of the divine properties, through which all things consist, are ruled, and are preserved, God, out of extreme goodness, communicated four when He created the essence endowed with reason and mind: to be, to always be, goodness, and wisdom. Two of these He bestowed upon the essence, namely, that it might be, and that it might always be. The two remaining, namely, goodness and wisdom, He assigned to the apt

^A disposition of the soul, that what He Himself is by essence, created things might become by participation. Wherefore man is said to have been created in the image and likeness of God. In the image, indeed, because he exists from Him who exists, and always exists from Him who always exists; for though he is not without beginning, he nevertheless will not cease to exist. In the likeness, however, because he is good from the Good, and wise from the Wise—possessing by grace what the other possesses by nature. Indeed, all men without exception are in the image, but only the good and the wise are in the likeness.

*Of the same.* Every rational and intellectual essence is divided into the angelic and the human nature. The angelic is divided again into two general ^B ranks and flocks: into holy Powers and into execrable demons. The human in turn is divided into two general ranks and flocks: into the pious and the impious.

*Of the same.* The "intellectual" is that which uses the mind; the "intelligible" is that which is understood by the mind. The food of that which uses the mind is, in a certain way, that which is grasped by soul and mind. This is the proper usage; they are, however, used interchangeably and improperly when the order is reversed.

*Of the same.* It must be investigated by the more studious what ^C things may fitly be considered to be the works which God began to create, and what, on the other hand, He did not begin. For if He rested from all the works which He began to make, it is clear that He did not rest from those which He did not begin to make. Are then all things that participate in being—such as the various essences of beings—works of God that had a beginning in time? For "not-being" preceded their being. For there was a time when they were not. But there are works of God which did not begin in time, being communicable, which things participate by grace, such as goodness and everything that is contained within the definition of goodness; and simply all life, and immortality, and simplicity, and immutability, and ^D infinity, and whatever is considered essentially in God—which are also works of God, and did not begin in time. For nothing was ever prior to virtue, nor to any of the other things mentioned. For there was never a time when these were not, being without beginning in time, and having only God as the most permanent and eternal cause of their existence. Those things, however, which began in time both are, and are called [exactly] that which they are and are called.

*Of the same.* Every intellectual and sensitive essence received faculties from the Creator to perceive beings: the intellectual faculty received intellection, and the sensitive faculty received the senses.

*Of the same.* God, who is the Creator, only bestows; all created things both receive and bestow. They receive

(the previous page's ending, already fixed and immutable) ^A even that they may be, and that they may be well. But they grant to others only that they may be well. And from these, those which are devoid of body, by speaking, and by acting, and by contemplating, grant to others that they may be well. But corporeal beings grant this only while they are contemplated. Indeed, those holy Powers impart the rays of splendor to one another in turn. But to men, they impart their virtue, while they render them similar to God; and they make them participants in their own knowledge, while they teach them something either more sublime concerning God, or more profound concerning beings devoid of body, or more exquisite concerning corporeal things, or more true concerning providence, or more clear concerning judgment.

Of the same. To created things, that they may simply be, it has been granted through their essence; that they may be well, through free will; that they may always be well, through grace. But those who fall away from this, that they might always be well, fall into this: that they might always be miserable.

TITLE VII.

On the divine assumption of human flesh. By the Areopagite, from the book on Divine Names, chap. 1.

^B That supreme Divinity especially loves the human race, inasmuch as It truly and integrally assumed our nature in one of Its persons, calling back to Itself and applying to Itself the lowest humility of men, from which, He who is simple, Jesus, was inexplicably composed; and He who is eternal, accepted the extension of time; and He who, above the measure of essence, surpasses the order of all nature, was born within the boundaries of our nature, in such a way, however, that He preserves what is proper to Him, in no way changed or confused.

Of the same, from chap. 2, on the combined and distinct reason of the Divinity.

^C Furthermore, that which is most evident in all theology, the divine formation of Jesus in our nature, can neither be explained by any speech, nor understood by any mind, nor by the very first of the most ancient angels. For that He assumed human essence, we have accepted from the mysteries. But how He was formed from virginal blood according to another law beyond nature, and how with dry feet, having a corporeal mass and the weight of matter, He walked upon the moist and unstable nature of water, and all the rest that are considered in Jesus as superior to nature, we are ignorant of.

Of the same, from the letter to Gaius the physician.

How, you ask, is Jesus, who excels all, constituted with all by essence? For He is not called man as the author of men, but because He exists as true man in His whole essence itself. But we do not define Jesus by human reason. For He is not only man, nor [only] an essence more excellent, ^D insofar as He is only man; but He is truly man, who, excessively loving men, beyond men, and according to men, from the essence of men, was Himself, being above essence, endowed with essence.

^A Indeed, by the abundance of this, and by truly coming into an essence, above essence He was endowed with essence, and beyond man He performed the things of man. And the Virgin, conceiving in a manner beyond nature, and the unstable water, supporting the weight of matter and earthy feet, and not giving way, but by a power beyond nature standing together into a state of non-diffusion, make this clear. What need is there for one to go through those many and very numerous things, by which he who beholds divinely will know beyond mind even those things affirmed concerning the philanthropy of Jesus, as having the force of a super-eminent negation? For, to sum it up, He was not merely man—not as if He were not man, but as coming from men, He became, beyond men, and beyond man, truly man. And thereafter, He did not live among us according to man in human things, but as God become man, He displayed a certain new theandric activity.

Of the same, from the Theological Elements.

Since He has come even to [human] nature because of philanthropy, and has been truly endowed with essence, and the One who is above essence has been named man (may there be propitiation from us for those things which are celebrated by us that exceed mind and reason), even in these things He possesses that which is beyond nature and beyond essence, not only because, having suffered nothing with respect to His super-abundant fullness on account of the ineffable emptying, He communicated Himself to us without change and without confusion; ^B but also, which is the most admirable of all admirable things, in those things which are natural, He was above nature; in those things which pertain to essence, He was above essence; possessing all things that are ours, from us, and above us by an excellent reason.

Of the same, from the book On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.

The infinite philanthropy of the divine goodness toward the human race, having truly taken up what is ours without sin, and having joined itself to our lowliness, while retaining what is its own without any confusion and without any diminution, has already communicated itself to us as if to kin, and has made us participants of its own goods.

From the book On the Celestial Hierarchy.

^C But I shall also look toward the highest theophanies of the oracles; for I see that Jesus Himself, the super-essential Cause of the super-celestial essences, having come to our state immutably, does not depart from the good order properly suited to man which was established and chosen by Him, but submissively obeys the instructions of the Father and God, which He had given through the angels.

Item, concerning the divine assumption of human flesh, of the great Gregory the Theologian, from the oration on the Birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But after the envy of the devil, and the trickery of the woman, ^D which she suffered as being weaker, and which she imposed as being more persuasive (alas for my weakness! For my

^A own is the infirmity of the first parent), he himself forgot the commandment which he had received, and being overcome by the bitter taste of the fruit, he is at once cast out both from the tree of life, and from paradise, and from God, as an exile, and he is clothed in skins, that is to say, in a coarser, mortal, and [figuratively] correspondent flesh, which would undergo death and resist the spirit. And first indeed he recognizes his own shame, and hides himself from the face of God. Yet he gains here death, through which sin is cut away, so that evil might not be immortal; and the punishment becomes a kindness. For in this way, I am persuaded, God punishes.

But whereas the human race, trained beforehand on many occasions and at different times against the many sins which that root of malice had brought forth, had been trained in many ways—namely, by speech, by law, by prophets, by benefits, by threats, by blows, by floods, by fires, by wars, by victories, by disasters, by prodigies from heaven, from the air, from the earth, from the sea, by the unexpected overthrow of men, of cities, and of nations—by which means nothing else was sought but that malice should be destroyed, it was earlier admonished and reproved in vain, and became entangled in greater sins, such as mutual murders, adulteries, perjuries, insane lusts of men, and (which was the most grievous of all evils) the worship of idols, by which men, neglecting the Creator, turned themselves to worship and adore created things; and since they now required more grievous remedies and medicines for such diseases, greater and more ^B grievous [remedies] were applied. For the Word of God Himself, who is before the ages, who cannot be comprehended, who has no body (and what follows), the immutable image of God, the exact definition and reason of the Father, He takes upon Himself the image which He had impressed upon man, and for the sake of flesh, He bears flesh, and for the sake of My soul, He is mingled with a rational soul, that He might cleanse like with like, and in all things, sin only excepted, He becomes man. He is born from a Virgin, whose soul and flesh the Spirit had previously cleansed. For it was fitting that both [human] birth should be honored, and that virginity should be preferred.

But God, having come forth with this assumption [of humanity], consists of two opposites, flesh and spirit, of which the one deified, and the other was deified (O new mixture! O paradoxical union!), He who is comes into being, and the uncreated is created, and the incomprehensible is contained through the medium of a rational soul, acting as mediator between the Godhead and the density of the flesh; and He who enriches becomes poor. For He embraces the poverty of my flesh, so that I may attain the riches of His Godhead. And He who is full is emptied; for He allows His own glory to be exhausted for a little while, that I may be made a partaker of His fullness. What are these riches of goodness? What is this mystery that appears concerning me? I had partaken of the image, and I did not keep it. He partakes of my flesh, so that He may save the image and make the flesh immortal. He enters ^C into a second communion, far more wonderful than the first, inasmuch as in the former He imparted what was superior, but in the latter He received what was inferior.

Of the Same, on the Holy Lights.

For since the inventor of malice, who thought himself ^D invincible,

^A having lured us with the hope of divinity, is himself lured by the presentation of flesh as by bait, so that by assaulting the new Adam in the way he assaulted the first Adam, he might fall upon God; and thus the new Adam saves the old, and dissolves the condemnation of the flesh, having put death himself to death by the flesh.

From the same oration. The Son of God becomes also the Son of man, not by being changed—for He is immutable—but by taking what He was not, in order that (such is His benevolence toward men) He, who could not be comprehended, might be comprehended by dwelling among us through the medium of flesh, as if behind a veil; for the nature that is born and perishes could not sustain the pure splendor of His divinity.

From the same, from the first letter to Cledonius, composed in the form of a discourse. For both are joined in such a way that they are one, God having become man, and man having been deified.

From the same, from the second discourse on the Son. For although the conjunction of both is one, it is not by nature, but by the union.

From the same, from the discourse on the Holy Lights. And this also is God by deification.

From the same, from the second discourse on Easter. And because of the man assumed, who was anointed by the divinity, and became what anointed Him, and [was] at the same time God—for so I dare to say.

From the same, from the discourse exhorting to baptism. ^B [He saved] whole man, and [is] whole God, for the sake of the whole [being] that had suffered, in order that He might grant salvation to the whole of you, having dissolved the whole condemnation of sin.

From the same oration. You are man for His sake to the same extent that He became God for your sake.

From the same oration. He shall come again to judge the living and the dead, no longer as flesh, and yet not without a body, but with a more divine body, in ways known only to Himself, so that He might be seen even by those who pierced Him, and yet remain God, without grossness.

Of the divine assumption of human flesh, ^C from the catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa. By whom were we required to be recalled to the original state of grace? To whom was it most appropriate to raise up the fallen? To restore the lost? To lead back the erring into the way? To whom else, if not to the very Lord of nature? For to whom He had originally granted life, to Him alone it was both permitted and appropriate to recover the same when it was lost. We understand from the mystery of the truth that man was made by God in the beginning; we say that he, when already profligate and lost, was preserved by God. And those who shall have seen that these things are consonant and not at all abhorrent to the notion we have of God, will perhaps concede them; but those things which follow, upon which the mystery of the dispensation ^D especially rests, they will not so easily admit: namely, that He was made man, grew from a child to complete maturity, ate, drank, and through labor, sleep,

sorrow, tears, calumnies, a courtroom, the cross, and death, was placed in a tomb. ^A For these things, when included in the mystery, somewhat blunt the faith of those who are rather faint-hearted, so that they cannot accept the things which follow hereafter because of the things already mentioned. For they do not accept the divine resurrection from the dead because of the unbecoming nature of the death. But I think it necessary first to withdraw our reasoning a little from the dullness of the flesh, and to consider what is honorable in itself, and to note by what marks each of these is apprehended. For I do not think that anyone who is of sound mind will deny that the one thing which is altogether a disgrace, and the only depravity which is defined by the foulness of vice, is that from which all that is alien is removed from every disgrace and turpitude; and that all things which are seen in the realm of honesty are fitting for God. Since these things are so, either let them demonstrate that birth, rearing, growth, progression towards the perfection of nature, the experience of death, and the return from death are vices; or, if they concede that the things said are removed from vice, they must necessarily confess that they are not shameful. Since, therefore, it has been declared that things are honest which recoil from every foulness of vice, are not those who assert that honest things are not fitting for God to be pitied as fools? ^B "But human nature," they will say, "is circumscribed by narrow limits, whereas God is infinite. How, then, can that which is infinite be enclosed in a tiny body?" And who says that the infinite power of the divinity was circumscribed by the flesh as if by some vessel, when not even in our own nature is the intellectual mind circumscribed by the limits of the flesh? For the mass of the body is defined by its own parts, but the soul, by the movements of the mind and thought, moves through all created things and ascends even to the heavens, penetrates to the lowest parts of the sea, wanders far and wide throughout the whole world, and reaches with its ingenuity to those things which are beneath the earth; furthermore, it often obtains an understanding of the things that are performed above the heavens, and is not hindered by the weight of the body. ^C If the soul of man, though joined to the body by the necessity of nature, is everywhere, what compels us to say that the divinity is hindered by the nature of the flesh? Why do we not rather conjecture and think by the example of those things which have been granted to us, what befits the divine dispensation? For just as we see in a lamp fire surrounding the subject matter, and we distinguish in thought the fire from the material that touches it, though in reality they cannot be distinguished—that is to say, so that the flame might be shown separated by itself from the material, but both are one (and let no one apply to me the corrupting nature of fire in this example, but let him take only what is suitable to the analogy, and reject those things which are alien to it)—what prevents us, in the same way that we see the flame touching the underlying material but not being enclosed within it, from entertaining a thought worthy of God, and believing that the divine nature is thus joined and becomes one with the human nature, ^D

even if it be in a person? ^A If you ask how the Godhead is mingled with the human, it is time for you, before that, to seek what the union of the soul is with the flesh. If the manner of your own soul, by which it is united to the body, is unknown, then by no means think that the former must come within the scope of your comprehension. But just as in this case we believe the soul to be something other than the body—from the fact that once the flesh is abandoned by the soul, it becomes dead and inactive, and useless for operation, although we do not know the manner of the conjunction—so also in the conjunction of God with man, we confess that the divine nature surpasses the mortal and perishable in every way in dignity, but as to the manner by which this conjunction is effected, we cannot understand it. ^B That God was born in the nature of man, we do not doubt from the wondrous deeds that have been seen and written, but the reason and the manner, as being greater than our ability to comprehend, we refrain from investigating. For neither, when we believe that all things, the bodily and the intelligible, subsisted from the incorporeal and uncreated nature, do we inquire into the "whence" or the "how" in our faith regarding these things. But accepting that they have come into being, we leave the manner of the constitution of the universe to be uninvestigated, as being entirely ineffable and inexplicable.

And for him who seeks proofs that God was manifested to us in the flesh, let him look to the works. For indeed, that God is in any way at all, no one could have any other proof than the testimony of the works themselves. Just as, therefore, we perceive ^C as we look to the universe, and contemplate the economies in the world, and the benefits bestowed from God through our life, that there is a certain power that is the maker of things which happen and the preserver of things that exist, so also in the case of God manifested to us through the flesh, we have taken up the miracles according to the works as a sufficient proof of the manifestation of the Godhead, having contemplated the works themselves, through which the divine nature is characterized. It is God’s to bestow life upon men; it is God’s to preserve things that are through providence; it is God’s to bestow food and drink upon those who live their lives in the flesh; it is God’s to do good to the needy; it is God’s to lead back to health the nature which had ^D strayed from the right path through weakness, and restore it to its original state; it is God’s to rule over all things created in like manner, over the earth, the sea, the air, and the regions above the air; it is God’s to possess power that is sufficient for all things, and, before all, to be superior to death and corruption. If any of these and similar things were lacking in the history in which His life is described, those who are aliens to the faith would justly reject our mystery; but if everything by which God is known is seen in these things, what prevents you from embracing the faith and religion? But, you say, to be born and to die are peculiar to the nature of the flesh. I grant this; but that which preceded His birth and that which followed His death exceeds the common condition of our nature. For if, in looking at both ends of human life,

^A you see from where we begin and to where we are led, we trace our origin from corruption and we end in corruption. Yet corruption did not attend His birth, nor did it follow His death. Does this seem wonderful and incredible to you? I rejoice at your unbelief. For you surely confess that, by the very fact that you consider what is said to be beyond belief, you acknowledge these miracles to be above nature. Therefore, let this very thing be for you proof of the divinity of Him who appeared, namely, that the proclamation concerning Him does not proceed entirely through natural means. For if all the accounts concerning Christ were contained within the bounds of nature, where would the divine be? But if the narrative exceeds nature in many things—in those things in which you are unbelieving—in these things lies the proof that He who is proclaimed is also God. For man is born from union, and after death, he falls into corruption. If the proclamation contained these things, you would certainly not have thought that He who is testified to in the properties of our nature is God. But since you hear that He was born, yet that He transcended the commonality of our nature both in the manner of His birth and in His being insusceptible to change toward corruption, it would be logical to use the opposite, in its strangeness, so as not to think of Him as one man among those shown within nature. For he who does not believe that such a one is a man must necessarily be led to believe that He is God. For he who recorded that He was born also related that He was born of a Virgin. If, therefore, it is credible through the things said that He was born, then through these same things, it is by no means implausible that He was born in this way. For he who spoke of the birth added that it was from a Virgin; and the one who made mention of death also testified to the resurrection following death. If, therefore, you grant from what you hear that He both died and was born, you will surely grant from the same things that both His birth and His death were far removed from corruption. ^B If these things surpass nature, then He who is shown to be superior to nature on account of them is not contained within nature.

From the same discourse.

What then, you ask, was the reason for God to descend to this humility, such that faith became doubtful, since He—the One who is incomprehensible, past understanding, and beyond all speech, who exceeds all thought and all magnitude—was mingled with the sordidness of human nature, by reason of which abject and humble descent even His other sublime deeds are disregarded? We are not ignorant of what ought to be answered to this as well. You who ask the reason why God became man: if you remove the divine benefits from human life, you will have nowhere from which to recognize God. For we recognize the Benefactor regarding us from His gifts. For by looking at the things that have been done, we understand the munificent nature of the Maker. ^C Therefore, if kindness and love for mankind are a sign of the divine nature, you have the reason you asked for; you have the cause of God’s appearance among men. ^D

^A Our nature, having grown weak, was in need of the One who repairs it; man, having fallen, was in need of the One who raises him up; the man who had lost his life was in need of the One who gives life; he who was slipping away from the participation in the Good was in need of the One who leads him back to the Good; he who was enclosed in darkness was in need of the presence of the Light; the captive was seeking the Redeemer, the prisoner the One who leads him out, and the one held fast under the yoke of slavery the One who delivers him. Were these things small and unworthy of God’s lowering Himself to visit human nature?

But, you will say, was it not permitted for God, while remaining in His own impassibility, to benefit man? For He who established all things by His will, and brought into being what was not by the impulse of His will alone, why, by some authoritative and divine power, did He not snatch man from the power of the adversary and lead him back to his original state, if this were His desire? Yet He traverses long periods, assuming a nature that is subject to growth, and through birth entering into life, and passing through every age in order, and then experiencing death, and so—through the resurrection of His own body—attaining the goal, as if He were not able, remaining on the heights of divine glory, to save man by a command, rather than endure such periods! ^B It is not necessary to respond to such objections from our side to the truth, so that the faith might not be hindered by those who inquisitively seek for the reasoning of the mystery.

First, then, let us consider what stands in contrast to virtue. As darkness is to light, and death to life, so is vice clearly to virtue, and there is nothing else besides this. For just as, although there are many things seen in creation, nothing else stands in opposition to light or life—not stone, not wood, not water, not man, nor any other thing of those that exist, except for what are considered in a contrary sense, such as darkness and death—so also in the case of virtue, no one could say that any creature is understood to be contrary to it, except for the concept of vice. Therefore, if our argument had suggested that the Divine had been born into vice, the objector would have a reason to attack our faith, as having set forth concepts that are inconsistent with and offensive to the divine nature; for it is surely not righteous to say that Wisdom Itself, and Goodness, and Incorruptibilty—and if there is any other lofty concept and name—has fallen over into its contrary. ^C If, then, God is true virtue, and nature is not divided against virtue but against vice, and God is not born in vice but in the nature of man, and the only unseemly and shameful thing is the affection of vice, in which God neither became nor has a nature to become, why are they ashamed to confess that God touched human nature, when in the construction of man there is nothing considered that is contrary to virtue? Neither the discursive faculty, nor that which is capable of knowledge, nor anything else of that which is proper to human essence, is opposed to the reason of virtue. But, he says, ^D the change of our body is a passion, and the one in

^A this state comes to be through passion. Yet the Divine is impassible. Therefore, the opinion is alien to God, if the proclamation determines that the impassible by nature should come into communion with passion. But we shall again use the same argument against these things: that "passion" is spoken of in one sense properly, and in another sense by catachresis. For that which touches the will, and turns one away from virtue toward vice, is truly a passion; but that which is observed as the process of nature proceeding according to its own proper sequence, this would more properly be called an operation rather than a passion—such as birth, growth, the preservation of the subject through the influx and efflux of nourishment, the concourse of elements around the body, and the dissolution of the composite, and its passage back to its kindred elements. Which, then, of these does our mystery assert that the Divine has touched? The one which is properly called a passion, which is a vice, or the movement according to nature? For if the discourse contended that the Divine had been born in the prohibited things, one would have to flee the absurdity of the dogma, as it would set forth nothing sound regarding the Divine nature; but if it says that He has touched our nature, of which even the first birth and subsistence had its beginning from Him, where does the proclamation err from the thought suitable to God, when no pathetic disposition of the faith is involved in the concepts regarding God? For we do not say that the physician becomes affected by passion when he heals one who is suffering from a disease. But even if he touches the infirmity, the healer remains free from passion. If generation itself is not in itself a passion, then one could not call life a passion. But the passion of pleasure, he says, leads the way for human generation, and the urge of the living toward vice is an infirmity of this nature of ours. But the mystery surely says that He is free from both. If, then, His generation is alienated from pleasure, and His life from vice, what passion is left in which the mystery of piety says God has participated? ^B But if one should call the separation of the soul from the body a passion, it would be much more just to name the union of both such a thing in the first place. For if the disjunction of those things united is a passion, the conjunction of those things separated would also be a passion. For in both there is a certain movement, so that, just as you call the consequent one, you ought to call the preceding one such as well. Therefore, if the prior movement, which you call birth, is not bad, neither could the posterior one, which you call death, by which the conjunction of body and soul is severed, be called bad. We, however, say that God was present in both movements—both in that by which soul and body come together, and in that by which the soul is separated from the body. ^{C D}

From the same oration.

from where, one might ask, was the one coming to us to enter into life? From heaven, perhaps, would say he who rejects the mode of human generation as shameful and ignoble. ^A But in heaven there was no human race, nor did any malady of vices reach up to those highest seats of heaven; where, therefore, evil was not, there the life of men did not dwell. How, then, does anyone seek for God to put on man from there, or rather, to put on a certain image and likeness of a man? And what correction of our nature would have occurred, if, while the earthly animal was sick, some one of the heavenly beings had received the divine presence? For the sick person cannot be cured unless the proper remedy is applied to the part that is suffering. If, therefore, he who was sick was on earth, but the divine power did not touch the sick one—looking to what was becoming to itself—the preoccupation of the divine power with things that have no communion with us would have been useless to man. ^B For that which is unbecoming is equal in respect to the Godhead, if it is at all permissible to consider anything other than vice to be unbecoming; yet in the case of one who judges the divine majesty meanly in this matter, by receiving the communion of the properties of our nature, it no less comforts the ignoble, whether the divine was fashioned in a heavenly body or an earthly one. For since from the Most High, who is inaccessible by the height of His nature, all creation is removed by an equal distance toward that which is below, and the whole is equally subordinate to Him. For He who is altogether inaccessible is not of such a kind that some things have access to Him while others do not possess it, but He excels and surpasses all existing things equally. Where, therefore, there is disease, those who confess that the healing power resides there, what have we believed that is outside of a God-befitting conception? But they ridicule our nature, and they slander the mode of birth, and they think that through these things they are making the mystery laughable, as if it were unworthy of God to have touched upon the communion of human life through such an entrance. ^C But it has already been said in the preceding discourses regarding this, that only vice is shameful to its own nature, and whatever is akin to vice. But the order of nature, ordained by divine will and law, is far from the slander concerning vice. For in this way, the accusation against nature would return upon the Creator, if anything regarding it were slandered as shameful and unbecoming. If, therefore, the Divine is separated from vice, and nature is not vice, and the mystery tells of God being born in man, not in vice, and there is one entrance of man into life, through which that which is begotten is brought forth into this vital light, what other mode of entering into life do they prescribe to God? For in that they judge that it was necessary for God to visit by His power a nature sick with vice, they think correctly; but in that they disapprove of the mode of visiting, they are ignorant that the entire construction of the body is in the same state of honor and value, and nothing of those things which accompany life is to be condemned as despicable or shameful; for all the instruments of human members tend to that one goal, that man may be preserved in life. Therefore, a part of them protects the present life, which serves for various uses th

these are divided for another operation, through which the sensitive and active faculty is managed; but the generative parts take thought for the future, introducing succession to nature. If you look to what is useful, of which of those deemed honorable would these be considered second-rate? Or of which would they not reasonably be judged superior? For it is not by the eye, nor the ear, nor the tongue, nor any other of the senses that our race is perpetually maintained. For these, as has been said, are for the enjoyment of the present. But in those ^B immortality is preserved for humanity, so that death, which is always acting against us, is in a way made idle and ineffectual, since nature is always introducing itself anew through those who are born to take the place of what is lacking. What absurdity, then, does our mystery contain, if through these same instruments God was joined from a pure Virgin to human life?

From the same oration.

^C Why then, when sin was flourishing at the beginning, was it not suppressed immediately at its very birth through the assumption of human flesh, and provision made lest it creep and propagate more widely? The answer is easy: Because He who cared for nature by wisdom and providence deferred His benefit toward us. For even in bodily diseases, when some corrupt humor has occupied the passages, those skilled in the medical art do not apply astringent medicines before that which is contrary to nature, having been diffused within, has fully poured itself out, and once it has been drawn to the surface, they then use their remedies. Since, therefore, the disease of malice had invaded human nature, the Physician of the universe waited for all the kinds of wickedness that lay hidden in nature itself to break forth. For this reason, He did not immediately after the murder and fratricide committed by Cain make the medicine for the human race. For not yet had the disease of those who were corrupted in the time of Noah appeared; not yet had the grievous sickness of Sodomitic iniquity been revealed; not yet the battle of the Egyptians ^D with God, nor the pride of the Assyrians, nor the slaughter of holy men committed by the Jews, nor all the other countless crimes and wicked deeds, which are either recorded in written monuments or passed over in silence, had come to exist, though the root of sin was creeping in various ways through the wills of men. After, therefore, malice reached its peak, and men had left no kind of wickedness untried, then the supreme Physician applied the remedy to cure the whole sickness. This was the cause why He wished to heal, not the rising, but the already perfected disease. But if anyone does not acquiesce in our arguments, because even after the medicine was applied the life of men still persists in sinning, let him be guided to the truth by a clear example. For just as we see in serpents, if they receive a mortal blow upon the head, they do not immediately die throughout the rest of their body along with the head itself

but though it is dead, the tail continues to live, sustained by its own life-force and not deprived of vital motion; thus it is possible to see malice, struck a mortal blow, yet in its remains still troubling this life. ^A

Item: Concerning the divine assumption of human flesh, from the exposition by Saint Maximus of the discourse on right confession.

Those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word handed down that the one from the holy and consubstantial and blessed Trinity, the Son of God and God the Word, became man for our sake, and that He was incarnate of the holy, all-glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, truly and in reality the Theotokos, uniting to Himself by hypostasis flesh from her, consubstantial with us, ensouled with a rational and intellectual soul; ^B and this did not exist beforehand in the twinkling of an eye, but in God the Word Himself it received its being and its subsistence, and that being perfect God He became perfect man, neither laying aside His being God by the fact of becoming man—which He was not—nor being prevented from becoming man—which He was not—by the fact that He remained what He was, that is, God; but being this, He also became that. And while He validated both, the divine at once and the human were confirmed by divine miracles and human sufferings. And according to His own nature and essence toward the Father, He is uncreated, invisible, infinite, immutable, inalterable, impassible, incorruptible, immortal, the Creator of all things; ^C but according to the nature of His flesh and our own nature, the same one is created, passible, finite, circumscribed, mortal—the same one indeed, but not in the same respect, on account of those things from which and in which He has existence. He is of the same essence as God and the Father according to His divinity, and He is of the same essence as us according to His humanity. His nature, or essence, is twofold, because, being the mediator between God and men, it was necessary for Him to preserve the natural property intervening between these extremes, so that He might be both, ^D by which, in reality, in Himself and through Himself, He might bind and join the earthly to the heavenly, and might bring the human nature, established from matter, which had been assailed and defeated by sin, to God and the Father, restored, reconciled, and deified—not by identity of essence, but by the ineffable power of the incarnation, making it a participant of the divine nature through His holy flesh taken from us, just as He created us from the beginning; for which reason He is known to be God and man at once, the same one in reality, and not by will alone. He is not, however, twofold in hypostasis, that is, in person, because the one and the same person both existed before the flesh and has remained the same after the flesh was assumed, with no addition having been made to the holy Trinity, nor any subtraction, by the incarnation of the Word. The same one suffered in the flesh for us, while the same one remains impassible in His divinity throughout. So that our salvation consists in the death of the only-begotten Son of God (O paradoxical and ineffable mystery!) and the [divinity of His] essence toward the Father

^A regarding glory and splendor, [He] remains ever undiminished.

By the same.

The great mystery of the divine incarnation remains a mystery forever, not only because, while it seems to correspond to the capacity of those who are being saved, it possesses a hidden secret greater than what is displayed; but also because that which has appeared remains still entirely hidden, being known by no reason as it truly is. For God, being beyond essence, was fashioned in accordance with essence; and though he became man for the sake of men, in his love for humanity, from the essence of men, he retains the manner of how he became man as something unrevealed, as one who became man beyond what is man.

By the same.

Who is so excellent in the power of speech that he would dare or be able to explain how the conception of God occurred? How the genesis of flesh was without seed? How the birth was without corruption? How the Virgin was a mother without a man intervening? How the mother remained a virgin, her virginity not dissolved by the birth? And that I may say the first thing last: how God becomes man? And what contains a greater mystery: how he who in essence is ^B by person subsisting in flesh, is by essence according to person always wholly in the Father? How he is wholly God by nature, and wholly became man by nature, neither denying the divine nature nor the human, but keeping them joined without confusion? This faith alone grasps—the basis of things existing beyond mind and speech—and [this is] indemonstrable knowledge.

By the same.

Adam, departing from the divine commandment, was the cause of human origin beginning with pleasure and ending with pain. For the sowing occurs through pleasure, but death through pain. Christ, on the other hand, having become obedient, bestowed upon men another birth, ^C spiritual, beginning from the pain and labors of cultivating virtue, but ending in pleasure and rest. Therefore, even he himself, when he willed to become man, although he did not accept the birth that is through seed, nonetheless endured the death that is through pain—not as a punishment for pleasure (which had not been his), but to absolve us who were condemned, and so that his death might be the death of our death and the herald of immortality.

By the same.

It was just that God, who is by nature good and wise and just and powerful, should not, as good, despise the weakness of the creature he had made; and as wise, should have the known method of our healing; and as just, should not vindicate into liberty by any violence those who had willingly subjected themselves to the servitude ^D of the demons; and as powerful, should possess the strength and capacity to accomplish this.

^A That fact declares, as was said, the goodness of God, which did not disregard human weakness. That mode, surpassing every mind and reason, by which He assumed our flesh, indicates His wisdom. For He who is perfect God became perfect man, so that with the two natures remaining in one hypostasis or person, they were united without confusion. The assumption of a nature capable of suffering demonstrates His justice. For He took up the defeated human nature with all its affections, which however were free from blame. For those that are joined with sin are not natural, but voluntary. And by this, and not by anything else, He vanquished and conquered the devil who had gained the victory over us, and preserved those similar to Himself by that which was similar. The fact that God could become man manifests His power. For what is greater than this? Furthermore, because He supplied the contraries to those things which He suffered. For in place of weakness, He provided the highest strength; in place of labors, rest; in place of a brief death, eternal life. Finally, for those things of which He Himself was deprived in His flesh, He recovered those things which our nature had lost. ^B

Of the same.

Of the same.

Of the same.

Item concerning the divine assumption of human flesh, by the Damascene. Chap. 66.

^A the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word. After the consent, therefore, of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit, according to the word of the Lord which the angel had spoken, descended upon her, and purified her, and provided her with the strength to receive the divinity of the Word and to conceive. And then upon her there overshadowed the hypostatic Wisdom and Power of God Most High, the Son of God, who is consubstantial with the Father, like a divine seed; and He fashioned for Himself, from her chaste and most pure blood, a body animated by a rational and intellectual soul—the first-fruits of our clay—not by seed, but in a creative manner, through the Holy Spirit; the structure was not perfected gradually by little additions, but was complete in one and the same moment of time. The Word of God Himself, moreover, became for the flesh a hypostasis, so that at once it was flesh, and at once it was the flesh of the Word of God, animated, rational, and intellectual. For this reason, we do not say that a man was deified, but that God became man. For He who is by nature perfect God, became also by nature perfect man—the same one—not having changed His nature, nor having made a phantom of the economy, but by being united hypostatically, without confusion, without change, and without alteration, to the flesh taken from the holy Virgin and animated rationally and intellectually, which possessed its being in Him. He did not convert the nature of His divinity into the substance of the flesh, nor, indeed, the substance of His flesh into the nature of His divinity, nor did He, from His divine nature and the human nature which He assumed, render one composite nature.

Of the same. Chapter 68.

^C These terms, "divinity" and "humanity," signify essence or nature. But those terms, "God" and "man," are used now to indicate essence—as when we say, "God is a nature which cannot be comprehended," and "that God is one"—and now they denote persons, concerning which it is spoken as the species is of its individuals, just as in that place of Scripture: *Therefore God, your God, has anointed you*. Behold, for here He indicated the Father and the Son. And as when you read in another place: *There was a man in the land of Ausitis*; for he indicated Job alone. Since, therefore, we acknowledge two natures in our Lord ^D Jesus Christ, and one only person, which consists of both natures, consequently when we contemplate the natures, we call them divinity and humanity. But when we reflect upon the person constant from nature, if it be considered as consisting of both natures, we name Him at once Christ, and God, and man, and God-made-man. But if [we consider Him] from one [part], then we call Him just God and Son of God, or man alone. And at one time He is considered from higher reasons, and at another time from more humble ones. For He is one, whether He exists in this way or in that. When, therefore, we speak of divinity, we do not name it with the properties of humanity; for we do not...

call flesh, or humanity, uncreated. But in the case of the Person, even if we name Him from both, or from one of the parts, we attribute to Him the properties of both natures. For Christ, who is the compound, is called both God and man, and created and uncreated, and passible and impassible. And when He is named from one of the parts as Son of God and God, He receives the properties of the conjoined nature, that is, of the flesh, being called a passible God and the Lord of glory crucified, not inasmuch as He is God, but inasmuch as He is the same as man. And when He is called man and son of man, He receives the properties and designations of the divine essence, such as a child born before the ages, and a man without beginning, not inasmuch as He is a child and man, but inasmuch as, being God existing before the ages, He was born in the last ages as a child. And this is the manner of the exchange, with each nature ^B giving to the other its own properties because of the identity of the Person and their mutual indwelling. According to this, we can say concerning Christ: This God of ours was seen on earth and lived with men; and this man is uncreated, and impassible, and uncircumscribed.

By the same. Chapter 70.

Common and universal things are predicated of the particular things that fall under them. Therefore, the essence is common, but the Person is particular. And it is particular, not because it possesses a part of the nature while it does not possess another part; but it is particular in number, as an individual. For Persons are said to differ in number, and not in nature. Now the essence is predicated of the Person because in each of the consubstantial Persons the essence is perfect. Wherefore the Persons do not differ from one another in essence, but in accidents, which are the characteristic properties; these are characteristic of the Person, but not of the nature. For they define the Person as essence with accidents. So the Person has that which is common, combined with its own proper note. ^C But the essence does not subsist by itself, but is contemplated in the Persons. When, therefore, one of the Persons suffers, the whole essence, through which the Person is said to have suffered, is in one of its Persons, yet it is by no means necessary that all the consubstantial Persons should suffer together with the suffering Person. Thus, therefore, we confess the whole nature of the divinity to be perfect in each of its Persons: all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, the Holy Spirit is perfect God. ^D

perfect in the Father, perfect in the Son, perfect in the Holy Spirit. ^A Wherefore, the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God. Likewise, in the humanity assumed by the one Word of God—one of the Holy Trinity—we say that the whole and perfect nature of the Godhead, in one of its own hypostases, was united to the whole human nature, and not a part to a part. For the divine Apostle says, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” that is, in his flesh. And his disciple, Dionysius, who is great in divine understanding, says that “he communicated to us wholly in one of his own hypostases.” Yet we are not compelled to say that all the hypostases of the holy Godhead, that is, the three, were united to all the hypostases of humanity according to hypostasis. For the Father and the Holy Spirit had no communion with the incarnation of the Word of God, except by good pleasure and will. But we say that the entire substance of the Godhead was united to the whole human nature, because the Word of God, having created us from the beginning, did not leave behind anything that he had implanted in our nature, but assumed all things: body, rational and ^B intelligent soul, and the properties of these. For a living being that lacks any one of these is not human. For he assumed the whole so that he might save the whole, and he was united to the whole so that he might grant salvation to the whole. For what is not assumed is not healed. The Word of God, therefore, is united to the flesh through the medium of the mind, which acts as a mediator between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh. For the mind is the leader of the soul and the flesh, as it is the purest part of the soul itself; and God is the leader of the mind itself, which, when it yields to the superior, displays its own leadership; but it is overcome and follows the superior, and performs the things which the divine will ordains. The mind has become a place for the Godhead that is united to it according to hypostasis, just as the flesh is, and not a fellow-dweller, as the cursed and mistaken judgment of the heretics imagines. For they would not say that a two-bushel vessel cannot contain one bushel, judging spiritual things as if they were physical. How, then, will Christ be called perfect God and perfect man, and consubstantial with the Father and with us, if a part of the divine nature is united in him to a part of the human nature? We say that our nature has risen from the dead, and has ascended, and has sat at the right hand of the Father, not because all the hypostases of all men have risen and sat at the right hand of the Father, but because our whole nature has attained this in the person of Christ. The divine Apostle says, “He raised us up and made us sit together in Christ.” Furthermore, ^C we say that this union was effected out of common substances. For every substance is common to all the hypostases contained under it, and it is impossible to find a particular and peculiar nature, that is to say, substance. Otherwise, there would be a necessity to call the same hypostases both consubstantial and of a different substance, and to call the holy Trinity both consubstantial and of a different substance according to the Godhead. The same nature, therefore, is contemplated in each of the hypostases. And when we say that the nature of the Word has been made flesh, according to the blessed

Athanasius and Cyril, we affirm that the divinity is joined to the flesh. ^A Wherefore, we cannot say that the nature of the Word suffered; for the divinity did not suffer in Him. In saying, however, that the human nature suffered in Christ, we do not signify all the persons of men, but we confess that Christ suffered in His human nature. So that when we say "the nature of the Word," we designate the Word Himself. And the Word possesses both the commonality of essence and the particularity of person.

Of the same. Chapter 71. Concerning the one composite person of God the Word.

^B Therefore, we confess Him to be one Son of God even after the incarnation, and the same one to be the Son of man; one Christ, one Lord, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, Jesus our Lord, revering His two births: one, before the ages, from the Father, above cause, and reason, and time, and nature; and one, at the end of times, for our sake, and according to us, and above us. For our sake, because it was for our salvation; according to us, because He became man from a woman, and in the time of gestation; above us, because it was not of seed, but from the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin, above the law of conception. ^C We do not proclaim Him as God alone, stripped of the humanity that is like ours, nor do we strip Him, as a mere man, of His divinity; we do not speak of one and another, but of one and the same, both God and man together; perfect God and perfect man; whole God and whole man. By saying "perfect God and perfect man," we indicate the fullness and lack of deficiency of the natures; but by saying "whole God and whole man," we signify the singular character of the person. And we confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, by saying "incarnate" we signify the essence of the flesh, according to the blessed Cyril. ^D The Word, therefore, is made flesh, and has not departed from His own incorporeal nature. And He is wholly made flesh, and was wholly uncircumscribed. He is diminished bodily and contracted; and divinely He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being extended together with His uncircumscribed divinity. For He is wholly perfect God, but not "a whole" God; for He is not only God, but also man. And He is wholly perfect man, but not "a whole" man; for He is not only man, but also God. For "whole" denotes nature, but "a whole" denotes person; just as "another" refers to nature, but "another" (as a different person) refers to person. He was in all things, and even above all things, even in the womb of the Mother of God, but in this case [He was there] by the operation of the incarnation. It must be known that, even if we say that the natures of the Lord permeate one another, we know that this permeation comes from the divine nature. For this alone extends through all things, as it wills, and permeates, but nothing permeates it. And this is the...

way it imparts its own dignities to the flesh, while remaining itself impassible and without part in the passions of the flesh. For if the sun, while bestowing its own operations upon us, remains without part in our own, how much more does the Maker of the sun do this? ^A

Of the same. Chapter 75. On the nature considered in the species and in the individual, and the difference between copulation and the assumption of the flesh.

Nature is considered either by thought alone, for in itself it does not subsist, or commonly, as connecting all persons of the same species, and it is called nature considered in the species; or it is entirely the same thing [considered] in the ^B assumption of accidents in one person, and it is called nature considered in the individual, being the same as the one considered in the species. Therefore, God the Word, becoming flesh, neither assumed the nature considered by naked thought alone—for this would not be an assumption of flesh, but a deception and a fiction of assumption—nor the one considered in the species; for He did not assume all the persons, but the nature in the individual, which is the same as that which is in the species (for He took the first-fruits of our lump), not subsisting by itself and having been an individual beforehand, and thus being assumed by Him, but having existed in His own person. For this very hypostasis or person of God the Word became the hypostasis for the flesh, and according to this the Word became flesh, ^C plainly, without change, and the flesh became the Word, without alteration, and God became man. For God is the Word, and man is God, through the union according to hypostasis. It is the same thing, therefore, to speak of the nature of the Word and of the nature in the individual. For it does not declare the individual, that is to say the hypostasis, strictly and solely, nor the common [nature] of the hypostases, but the common nature considered and examined in one of the hypostases. Union, therefore, is one thing, and the incarnation is another. For the union indicates only the joining, but [it does not declare] with what that joining has taken place. But the incarnation—which is the same thing as to say the becoming-man—declares the joining with flesh, that is, with man, just as the heating of iron shows the union with fire. ^D

Of the same. Chapter 84. On the natural and blameless passions.

Furthermore, we confess that He assumed all the natural and blameless passions of man. For He assumed the whole man, and all things that are of man, except for sin. For this is not natural, nor sown in us by the Creator, but [it comes] from the sowing of the devil, gathered in our free elective will voluntarily, and not taking hold of us against our will. Natural and blameless passions are those which are not in our power, which, of course, entered into human life because of the condemnation at the transgression, such as hunger, thirst, toil, pain, the tear, corruption, the avoidance of death, cowardice, agony, from which the

drops of blood, the help from the angels on account of the weakness of nature, and such things as these, exist naturally in all men. He therefore assumed all these things, so that He might sanctify all things. Indeed, our natural passions were in Christ both according to nature and above nature. According to nature, they were moved in Him, because He permitted the flesh to suffer and to feel what is its own; but above nature, because the natural movements did not rule over the Lord's will, for nothing in Him is considered compelled, involuntary, or necessary, but all things are voluntary. For He hungered willingly, He thirsted willingly, He feared willingly, He died willingly.

Of the same. Chapter 97. Why the Son of God became man, and not the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. ^B

The Father is the Father, and not the Son. The Son is the Son, and not the Father. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and not the Father, nor the Son. For the property is immovable. For if the property were to move and shift, how would the property remain? For this reason, the Son of God becomes the Son of man, so that the property may remain firm and immovable. For being the Son of God, He became the Son of man, having been incarnate from the holy Virgin, and not having departed from the Son's property.

Item concerning the divine assumption of the human flesh. Of other Fathers.

If fire, while remaining in its place, is conjoined with iron, how much more did He who is omnipotent, while remaining immovable, become ^C conjoined with the assumption, and He was wholly in the Father, and He was wholly in the assumption? Such a word is therefore supernatural, because the Son and Word is Himself supernatural.

If the mind, being connected to the soul that inhabits the body, proceeds wherever it wishes without ever abandoning the soul, and traverses and penetrates everywhere, so to speak, without moving, it is superfluous to wonder how the Son and God, without leaving the Father and the heavens, descended to the earth, and being uncontained, was contained by soul and body. For if the creature possesses such a power, what must the Creator Himself be, who granted to the creature this thing which is wonderful and inexpressible?

The Word and God is wholly incarnate, and wholly is He uncircumscribed. ^D For this reason, He was both in the bosom of God and the Father, and in the womb of the Mother of God; the former as uncircumscribed, the latter as one who had been incarnated.

The Word and God, being incarnated, was also in all things, as He who fills all things and is above all things, as He who is uncircumscribed and uncontained by all; and He was in the womb of the Mother of God by the operation of the incarnation and uncircumscribably, and He was in the assumption by the union of the flesh and likewise uncircumscribably. He became man for us, and according to us, and above us, because through our...

^A His being, consequently, and that He had a beginning of existence, for this reason those who gathered at that time deposed him and declared him a heretic; but as they wrote more simply concerning the divinity of the Son, they did not occupy themselves with the precision of the "consubstantial" (homoousion). For they had every concern to abolish what the Samosatene had devised, and to show that the Son is before all things, and that God did not become God from men, but being God, He put on the form of a servant, and being Word, He became flesh, as John said; and thus indeed has it been done against the blasphemy of Paul. Since, however, those around Eusebius and Arius said that the Son was indeed before times, yet they taught that He had been made and was one of the creatures, and did not believe that the phrase "from God" meant a genuine Son from the Father, but as creatures are, so they maintained that He was "from God"; and they did not say the unity of the similarity of the Son toward the Father was according to substance, nor according to nature, as a son is like a father, but because of the harmony of dogmas and teaching; nay rather, they completely separated and alienated the substance of the Son from the Father, devising for Him another beginning of existence apart from the Father, and casting Him down into the creatures; for this reason those who gathered in Nicaea, having observed the cunning of those who thought in this way, and having gathered the meaning from the Scriptures, writing more clearly, have said "consubstantial" (homoousion): so that the genuine nature of the Son might be known from this, and that created things might have nothing in common with Him. For the precision of this word refutes their hypocrisy, if they say the expression "from God," and casts out all their persuasions by which they snatch away the simple-minded. At any rate, while they are able to devise sophisms and alter everything as they wish, they fear this word alone as refuting their heresy—which the Fathers wrote as if it were a bulwark against every ungodly device of theirs. ^B Therefore let all contention cease, and let us no longer stumble if the synods have understood the word "consubstantial" in different ways. For we have reasonable causes for our defense concerning them, both those stated before, and this one as well: that we have not learned the word "unbegotten" (agenneton) from the Scriptures, for nowhere have the Scriptures called God "unbegotten"; nevertheless, because many of those who were reputed to be distinguished mentioned that name, by inquiring more closely we have known that this name also has different significations: for some say "unbegotten" is that which exists, but is neither begotten, nor has any cause at all; while others say it is that which is uncreated. Just as, therefore, with these things having been signified in this way, if someone, looking at the former signification—that which has no cause—were to say that the Son is not "unbegotten," he would not, on that account, criminate another who, looking at the meaning that He is neither a product nor a creature, but an eternal offspring, calls the Son "unbegotten." For both, looking to their own scope, have spoken well; so if some of the Fathers have spoken about the "consubstantial" in one way, and some in another, let us not be contentious.

^A When, therefore, we say "two" in Christ, we do not mean two in number, since there is one person, but two in species—that is, nature—because of the duality of the natures. For Gregory the Theologian says that the two are one, not by nature, but by union. And Aristotle also says that matter and form are one in number, but two in species. We ought to put forward these two uses against those who concede that many individuals of one species can be found, but contend that it is impossible for two species to be found or mentioned in one individual, calling that absurd.

"The same" is said in terms of essence, as Peter is the same as Paul in essence—and this we also call the same by nature. It is also said in terms of genus, as an ox is the same as a horse in genus, for the genus of both is "irrational animal." It is also said in terms of species, as Titus is the same as Timothy in species, for both are under "human." It is also said in terms of number, as something with many names is the same in number; for instance, *xiphos* (sword), *aor* (sword), and *spathe* (blade) are one in number, for the underlying object is the same in this case. It is also said in terms of analogy, as the mind is the same as the eye in analogy; for what the eye is in the body, the mind is in the soul. It is also said in terms of person, as is the case with Christ, for his different natures are the same in person—that is, one.

Regarding Christ, we speak of the two natures as being of discrete quantity when ^B considered by thought alone, as things divided only in thought, but in reality we speak of them as being of continuous quantity, as things that are indivisible in reality.

Union is the gathering together of distinct things that share in one another. It occurs in various ways. For it may be by mixture, as in liquids, wine and water; or by a heap, as in dry ^C things, wheat and barley; or by saturation, as in dry and liquid, earth and water; or by blending, as in different types of flour; or by fusion, as in those things that melt, such as gold and silver, wax and pitch; or by harmony, as in stones; or by juxtaposition, as in planks; or by continuity, as in a lamp that comes from fire and is joined back to it; or by essence, as in individuals, such as Peter and Paul, or certain horses, oxen, or other animals; or by connection, as in friends and opinions coming together into one will; or by composition, as in soul and body. But that which is "in person" is said only of the Godhead and manhood in Christ. The holy Cyril was the first to define this. For when Nestorius taught that the union of the two natures in Christ came about by connection, Cyril, opposing this blasphemy, introduced the "in-hypostasis" [union], signifying that they were united in one hypostasis, that is, into one person. The two natures possessed one person, and not two, according to the ravings of Nestorius. Such a union is also called essential, that is, true, and not according to imagination.

And otherwise, union according to hypostasis is the gathering of things of different essences into one hypostasis, with the natural property of each being preserved even after the union. ^D

^A This would also be appropriate for the soul and body, which have been united into one hypostasis, as the Damascene taught.

That is said to be of the same hypostasis which is joined to another into one and the same hypostasis, though differing from that same thing in essence, as in the case of the soul and body. ^B God is intermingled with all things through the sustaining power of the nature within each, but the Son, being God, is intermingled through the assumption of nature in hypostasis. Christ is united to the Father by the Word, and in the same way to us; for by the same reason by which He is distinguished from the Father, by that same reason is He distinguished from us: namely, by hypostasis. Yet He is united to Himself by hypostasis, while He is distinguished by nature. And He is consubstantial with the Father and with us, but not of the same hypostasis; with Himself, however, He is of the same hypostasis, but not consubstantial. This is because there are two natures in Him, but only one hypostasis.

When we are no longer able to call a composite thing by the names of the parts from which it is composed, we are accustomed to call its nature absolutely one; for example, any body composed of the four elements—earth, water, air, and fire—since we cannot properly call it earth, or water, or air, or fire, because these are simple and the former is composite, we name it the one nature of a body. Likewise, furthermore, regarding man, ^C since we cannot properly call him either soul or body (from which he is composed), because the definition of the soul is one thing, that of the body another, and that of man (composed of both) another, we designate him as one nature, even if it is customary for Scripture, often making use of the freedom of the Spirit, to name the whole from the part.

But in the case of Christ, the union is ineffable, for the human mind could not attain to it. For the Word did not join another hypostasis to Himself, but a human nature, in a way that He alone knows, He united to His own hypostasis and, to speak more properly, caused to subsist in Himself. But since we are able, in the case of Him who consists of divinity and humanity, to speak properly with the names of the parts that are united—for we properly call Him God, and we properly name Him man—^D it is with good reason, therefore, that we designate Him as having two natures, and not one, as in other things that are composite, nor three; for man is not said to have two natures, even if he consists of two natures, as has been demonstrated.

Every composition is said to be composed of the parts that immediately compose it. For just as we do not say that a house is composed of earth and water, but of stones and wood; and similarly, that man is composed not of four elements, but of soul and body; so too, Christ is composed of divinity and humanity; for we do not consider the parts of parts, but only those parts which are the most immediate and primary.

^A If man consists of body and soul, as of two natures, Christ certainly will consist of three natures. But man has a single nature. For the nature of the body is one, and that of the rational soul is another, the coming together of which constitutes the one nature of man. And as long as they are united, he is called man; but once they have been separated, he is no longer man, but one part is a corpse, the other a rational soul. Man, therefore, has a single composite nature.

If the assumed humanity is proper to the Word, then all that is proper to the assumed humanity will also be proper to the Word, though He is not subject to these things, but communicates to it what is His own, even if not in the way in which these are possessed by Him. This mode we call "interchange" (antidosis), whereby natures mutually encompass one another and appropriate to themselves the things of the other. And although we say that they encompass one another and are in one another, this interpenetration (perichoresis) belongs ^B strictly to the divine nature. For this traverses all creation as it wills, but nothing traverses it.

Interchange signifies three things: first, that of names, as when we call man God, and God man; second, that of things, which is twofold: the one is equal and dissimilar, as in the case of God having become man, and man having become God. For although the assumed man became God to the same extent that the God who assumed him became man—for the incarnation and the deification took place through body, and soul, and mind—yet it is not in the same way. For the one became man by nature, while the other became God by grace. Another is similar and unequal, as in the case of the soul given to man by God, and the flesh lent to God ^C and the Word by man. For the soul may be called an image of God and similar to God as far as is possible, but in no way equal. In the first case, He gave the superior, and in the latter, He took the inferior. It should be noted that while we sometimes call God man, and sometimes man God, we never call the divinity man nor the humanity God.

There is no way to find an image that represents the matter proposed; yet we will attempt to bring forward one, which, if it falls short of the magnitude of the mystery, will nevertheless in some way aptly adumbrate the truth. For just as if the entire air were to become incandescent, or rather were entirely fire, and a small fragment of iron were cast ^D into it, it would necessarily be so affected that it would appear to be nothing other than fire, even though the definition of its own substance persisted; so too, the human nature, being united to that of God, was so overcome that it no longer appears to remain the nature of a man. For this reason, the Fathers have said that it was deified, looking to that which predominates. Whence also there is one worship of them, because of their one person and indivisible union.

^A We do not admit a difference of persons in Christ, lest we should imagine the addition of a fourth person to the holy Trinity; but we do acknowledge a difference of natures, lest we should claim that the flesh is consubstantial with the Word according to its nature. If there were three bronze statues, and one of these were entirely covered over with gold or wax, would one say that it had suffered any damage in its own substance, or rather that it preserves two natures, whole and uninjured—its own, and that which was applied to it—and yet that there did not for that reason become four statues, but they remained three in number just as before? In the same way, that we may form conjectures about great things from small ones and by certain obscure images search out the truth, understand that in Christ there are two natures, but one person, and that no addition will accrue to the Trinity on account of the assumed nature of humanity. For it is a nature that was assumed, not a person. And so, even after that assumption, there remained one divinity and a trinity of persons.

Not by mutation, or inversion, or confusion is the Lord’s ensouled flesh said to have become divine and to be named God, but on account of the highest conjunction of person. For God is said to have been made man because He is conjoined to humanity, and God Himself—and His humanity likewise—is called divine because of the most truthful union of it in person. After this union, however, the natures remained unconfused with their own properties. For the gold applied to the wood remains what it was; yet the wood acquires the dignity of the gold, neither ceasing to be wood nor relinquishing its own nature. ^{B C}

The Word and God assumed either universal man or a singular man. If universal, He would not be visible; for universal nature is not visible. Furthermore, it would have many persons, for universal kind comprises many. Nor would it be of the same essence as us; for we are individuals. And many such inconveniences would follow. If, however, He assumed a singular man, He would be found to have two persons. It remains, therefore, that He did not assume either, but the nature of a singular man, that is, of an individual, He Himself becoming the person of this. The nature of a singular man is indeed common, but it exists in an individual. We speak of a singular man as an individual of the species, not as soul alone, or body alone, but as that which is fashioned from both. ^D

Of those things in human nature which are neither reprehensible nor alien to our nature, Christ received some in a way above men, some as men, and some in a way more abject than men. Above men was that which was conceived without seed, that which was born of a Virgin, and other things similar to these. It was after the manner of men that, as a little child, He enlarged the womb of the divine Mother of God, that He was born in the space of nine months, that He drank milk, that He wept, and other things of that kind. It was more abject and humble than is the custom for men that his form appeared dishonored on the cross, and

as one who has no form or beauty, as Isaiah says. And the fact that He died before the thieves who were crucified with Him from the pain of the nails; and add to this, if you wish, that He allowed Himself to be seen after the resurrection in the humble form of a gardener, and showed the scars and marks of His wounds to the apostles, and that He ate. For all men, after their resurrection from the dead, will shine like the sun, and no one at that time will have physical wounds or the marks of wounds, nor will they stand in need of food. The Son of God and God Himself is said to be conceived, and born, and to teach, and to work wonders, and, in a word, to have done some things and suffered others, to have died and risen again. Because He Himself became the hypostasis for the humanity assumed, which, by reason of the seedless conception, did not have a personal hypostasis of its own. Since, therefore, the hypostasis of the One who assumed is also the hypostasis of what was assumed, He ^B Himself is said both to act and to suffer, as being one person; yet to act and to suffer in the human way according to the nature of what was assumed. Whence He also makes the things of His own [assumed nature] His own, as being Himself its hypostasis and person, as has been shown.

We say that God became man, and that God suffered in the flesh; but we do not say that the Godhead became man or suffered in the flesh, if we are to speak with precision, since the Virgin bore not the Godhead, but the one incarnate hypostasis of the Godhead, which is the Son, so that the Son above might also be the Son below, and His property remain immutable. For being born was not [a property] of nature, but of the hypostasis. For if it were of nature, that which is begotten and that which is unbegotten would not be observed in the same nature. But since she bore Christ, who is God and man, she is called Theotokos from the superior and more sovereign part. Furthermore, the hypostasis of what was assumed was divine, and what was assumed was rendered divine by the union. ^C

TITULUS VIII. IN HEBRAEOS

All the chapters that follow, up to those which we have collected from Chrysostom, are taken from the book which is entitled *On the Knowledge of God*, the author of which is said to be Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, with the exception of the fifth, which is by Basil the Great.

The law and the prophets, the fullness of whom is Christ, have written down in detail everything concerning Him, and also concerning the Holy Trinity. But by divine providence these things were scattered here and there and obscured, so that the Jews, still being infants and not yet able to comprehend higher things, might not turn aside to unworthy opinions, and think that that which is removed from all affection is subject to affections. For when God began to speak to them at Horeb, they excused their own weakness with such words, saying: ^D "We shall not continue to hear the voice of the Lord our God, and we shall not see this great fire any more, lest we die." And He said

^A to me—so says Moses, who wrote these things—"They have spoken well all that they have spoken. I will raise up a Prophet for them from among their brethren, like unto you, and I will put my word in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them according to what I command him." These things, then, are so. The meaning of the words is this: Since they cannot hear now, I will raise up a prophet for them—and what follows—who will announce to them those things which, as things currently stand, they have no strength to receive. From these, therefore, are the things concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the things concerning the divine incarnation, and, in short, all that has been legislated through the Gospel. For the phrase "like unto you" indicates, rather, the similarity in the act of legislating. But Joshua the son of Nun was neither deemed worthy of such a theophany as Moses, nor did he become a legislator like him, nor did he find such grace as he did.

^B Christ, however, while being "like unto him" in the act of legislating, excels him in all other things as the Lord. But that the son of Nun is not that prophet whom God promised, gather it thus: Moses said to the people in Deuteronomy: "The Lord your God shall raise up for you a Prophet from among our brethren," and so forth. Yet the son of Nun had been designated by God long before through the hands of Moses, as the book of Leviticus records. Therefore, another was to be raised up besides him. But the Jews seem to be ignorant of what is written at the end of Deuteronomy after the death of Moses. For it says: "And there has not yet ^C arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." It was fitting, indeed, that when God said to Moses, "I will raise up a prophet for them," Moses should then say this to the people. But having learned this at Horeb, he said it to the people later, according to Deuteronomy, exercising economy by awaiting the appointment of Joshua the son of Nun, so that they might not assume him to be that anticipated prophet. Yet after his laying on of hands, he then declared this to the people. These things, then, are to that extent.

But since there are countless passages, both those that foretell the things concerning Christ and those that announce the things concerning the holy Trinity, we shall omit many—especially those that ^D these people maliciously attempt to interpret otherwise—so that we do not give an opening and occasion for wicked contradictions. For "all the house of Israel are contentious and hard of heart," says Ezekiel; but we shall put forward a few, and those so clear that they cannot be refuted, which will either persuade them or convince those who are stubborn, obstinate, and senseless.

Of the Book of Genesis.

"And God said, Let us make man after our image and likeness." The Father is, of course, addressing those who are of His own essence, whom He shares in the supreme dignity of the creation of the world. Nor are these things to be referred to the Hebrew idiom...

which uses the plural for the singular, lest, by misapplying such a feature where it is not appropriate, we fill those who contradict us with much confusion. ^A

From the same book. And God said: "Behold, Adam is become as one of us," that is, as each one of us who are the persons in one divinity. For even if it is said with irony, it nonetheless cannot signify only one person.

From the same book. And God said: "Come, let us go down and confound their language." For "Come" signifies at least two, and he who is speaking is one. From this the perfect Trinity is declared. That He speaks to those who are of the same power and essence, saying "Come, let us do this," is easily apparent. And if you reply that He addressed the ministering angels—either all of them, which is absurd, or a few of them, as you might say—we shall refute it as false, since it is supported by no testimony of Scripture. ^B

How does God converse? Is it in our manner? It would be impious to think so. For the divine counsel, and that primary impulse of the intelligent mind, is the Word of God, which Scripture thus expounds and expresses, so that it might signify that God did not merely wish the creation to come into being, but wished to bring it into existence through the cooperation of some one. For He could have proceeded with everything as He did from the beginning. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Then He created light, then He created the firmament. But now, by introducing God as if commanding and conversing, He silently points out the one with whom He is conversing, not because He begrudges us the knowledge, but because He inflames us with the desire for it, by means of those traces and certain seeds of the ineffable that He puts forward. For what is acquired with labor is received joyfully and guarded diligently; whereas what we acquire easily, we are accustomed to despise and neglect. ^C Therefore, by a certain way and order, He leads and attracts us to the understanding of the Only-Begotten. Moreover, the use of speech which is brought forth by voice was not necessary for that nature which is devoid of a body, since He could communicate His thoughts to His co-worker without these words. For voice is for the sake of hearing, and hearing is for the sake of voice. But where there is no air, nor tongue, nor ears, nor those winding paths of the ears that lead sounds to the sense that is in the head, there are no words necessary, but thoughts are revealed, so to speak, from the very notions of the heart or the mind. Wherefore Scripture, wisely and skillfully, as I have said, employs this figure to impel our mind to investigate the person with whom the conversation is established. ^D

From the same book. And God appeared to him by the oak of Mamre, as he was sitting at the door of his tent, in the heat of the day. And lifting up his eyes, he saw, and behold, three men

^A stood above him. And seeing them, he ran to meet them, and bowed down to the earth, and said: Lord, if indeed I have found favor before you, do not pass by your servant. And a little later it is said to him: Where is Sara your wife? And he, answering, said: Behold, in the tabernacle. And he said: Returning I will come to you, and what follows. Behold, it is written that God appeared to Abraham, and yet there were three who appeared. And although there are three, the conversation is carried on with one only, so that it may be firmly established that the divinity of the three persons is one. But if you say that one is God and the other two are angels, how could they have sat down with the Lord?

From the same book. The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord from heaven. These words indicate two persons, and declare the same counsel and equal power. And a third person follows these two, since they are so joined together by a mutual bond that they cannot be separated.

From Exodus. Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one. The phrase "Lord, and God, and Lord" shows three persons, but the word "one" shows the one divinity and nature.

Of David [and Zechariah, and Isaiah]. In God I will praise the word; in the Lord I will praise the speech. In God I have hoped, I will not fear what man can do to me. And again: Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High, and call upon me in the day of your tribulation. And again: The Lord lives, and blessed be God, and let the God of my salvation be exalted. ^B And furthermore: In your light we shall see light, that is, in your Son we shall know the Holy Spirit. For through him, just as we have been initiated more clearly into the mysteries concerning the Father, so too into those concerning the Holy Spirit; and we find many such things that proclaim the holy Trinity. Even that angelic hymn: Holy, holy, holy Lord, by the triple "holy" demonstrates the three persons, but by naming "Lord" once, it declares the one divinity. But David speaks much more significantly of the Father and the Son, from the person of the Father to the Son: Out of the womb, he says, have I begotten you. By "womb," he teaches that the essence and nature of the Father is to be understood. For whom else could you find who was begotten without time? And from the person of the Son: The Lord said to me: You are my Son, today I have begotten you. For "today I have begotten you" signifies his birth in time from the Virgin. For "I have begotten" stands for "it was pleasing to me that you be begotten," or "I have brought forth." And to this person of the Son belongs also that saying of Solomon: The Lord created me, and what follows. Then he adds: Before all the hills he begets me. For "created me" signifies his human origin in time. But that "before all the hills he begets me" signifies his origin from above, outside of time, and before all ages. And again David: by the word of the Lord the heavens w

^Aere established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power. By "the Lord" he means the Father, and by "the Word" his Son, because he relates to the Father as a word does to the mind, not only on account of a birth that occurs without any passion, but also because of the conjunction with the Father, and because he declares the Father's will. By "Spirit" he means the Holy Spirit. And again, regarding the Word and Son: "He sent his word, and healed them," clearly meaning the Father sent the Son to those suffering from the sickness of error. And regarding the Holy Spirit: "You shall send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created," with a new creation, obviously, "and you shall renew the face of the earth," which had grown old in sins. ^B Neither is the prophetic Word sent forth to be poured into the air through vocal instruments, nor is it dissolved. For he says in another place: "Your word, O Lord, abides in heaven for ever." Nor is that Spirit expelled through respiratory instruments, nor is he dispersed or dissipated; for these things happen to bodies. It is clear, therefore, that both the Word and the Spirit exist as persons, and are eternal, and are creators. And Job also says: "As the Lord lives, who has thus judged me, and the Almighty, who has embittered my soul, and the divine Spirit that remains in my nostrils." And Zacharias, speaking from the person of God and Father: "I am with you, says the Lord, and my Word, and my Spirit." And Isaiah: "Now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit."

From Genesis [and Isaiah]

Jacob says to his two wives: "And the angel of God said to me in a dream: I have seen all that Laban does to you," and what follows. Then: "I am the God who appeared to you in the place of God." If he was simply an angel from the number of the ministering powers, how does he call himself God? Or was it surely the Son, who is the angel, that is to say, the messenger of God and the Father, just as the word is the index of the mind, and the discourse indicates the sense of the mind and soul? For after assuming human flesh, he announced to us the name of the Father: "I have manifested your name to men," he says. And as the "Angel of great counsel"—for thus Isaiah addressed him—furthermore naming him "wonderful Counselor, and God mighty, ^D Potentate." For who is God's counselor, if not the Son, who is of the same essence, and of equal power and dignity? The counsel and will of the Father is the salvation of men through the evangelical commandments. By the counsel of the Father and the Son, the same will is signified. That this Son and God put on human flesh, the same Isaiah shows: "A child," he says, "is born to us, and a son is given to us." For our sake the Son was born a child and lived among us. For the prophet predicted these things about the Son in the strict sense, and not about a son in a general sense, and as a miraculous work. For what involves wonder in a son being born a child in a general sense? Therefore he fittingly added what follows to emphasize the

^A His divinity, and the distinction between Him and those who are simply sons.

Jeremiah [nay, Baruch and Isaiah]

Isaiah

Of the Same

Micah

Daniel

^A and there was given to Him honor, and empire, and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed. Who then is this son of man who has received absolute and everlasting power over all? Certainly no mere man, but Christ, who is God and man, concerning whom David also addresses God and the Father thus: "O God, give Thy judgment to the king, and Thy justice to the king's son." For Christ is king and son of a king as God, and as man He became king and son of a king, namely of David. Because of this, He later said: "All power has been given to me in heaven and on earth." To Him the Father, after He had received the kingdom as man, said: "Sit at my right hand." For He says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." Or who are these two lords of David, of whom the discourse treats, unless you admit these? And when David had said, "O God, give Thy judgment to the king," and what follows, he added that "His name remains before the sun," that is to say, the name of His divinity or of His sonship. For it was necessary for both to be present. Who then is this king, if it is not He? To whom have all nations served, and been blessed, and called blessed, if not to Christ alone? But if you are still waiting for Him, until Elias runs before Him, you are awaiting the second coming of the Savior, when the end of the world will be at hand. For since there are two comings of Christ—one when He came to assume human nature, and the other when He will come to judge the entire world—the former has already occurred, of which John, the second Elias, was the forerunner; the latter will occur, having as its forerunner Elias, the second John. For both are of the same Spirit, and of the same grace and power, insofar as they run before Christ.

Is that Anointed One and Messiah, for whom you wait, a mere man, or God and man? For if He is a mere man, He is not the one whom the prophets announced, who attached to Him signs of divinity, so as to separate Him from mere and simple men—but from whom else have you learned the marks and signs of Him whom you expect? But if He is God and man, do you not perceive that you are confessing another person of the divinity? For you will certainly not say that this is the Father. For "a child," He says, "is born to us, a Son," but not the Father. Furthermore, Messiah, Christ, and Anointed One are the same. "Understand, therefore, you who are foolish among the people, and you dull ones, be wise at last." And Isaiah also addresses you: "You blind, look; and you deaf, hear." Are you therefore willingly blind? Or are you entirely devoid of sense? When then will you distinguish the ambiguities of names, or the meanings of words, or the properties of expressions, by which the truth is comprehended? ^B

Concerning the sufferings and death of Christ.

^Alignant ones have beset me. They have pierced my hands and my feet. They have numbered all my bones. They have divided my garments among themselves, and upon my vesture they have cast lots." To whom else, tell me, will you apply these things, which are clearly shown in the Gospels to be in agreement with Christ? And through Isaiah, Christ also foretold beforehand concerning such things: "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the smiters, and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting." And again David says: "They gave gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." And if you should understand these things regarding the people in captivity, your opinion will be easily refuted by the fact that it is nowhere written that they suffered these very things in such a manner, but rather other many and grievous things. ^B Regarding his execution, Isaiah foretold: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter." And in order that you may know that this was saving for us, the same prophet says again: "By his stripes we were all healed." And in order that you may learn that for the sake of his slaughter the race of the Jews was delivered to destruction, he added: "And I will give the wicked in place of his burial." For what is more wicked than the Jews, who killed him who had granted them so many benefits?

Concerning the resurrection of Christ.

Concerning the Church from the Gentiles, according to Isaiah.

^A For the Church from among the nations was indeed a wilderness, before it bore fruit, and was a dwelling-place for the beasts of the mind; one which, burning with the fire of passions, thirsted for the knowledge of God and for salvation. And having obtained the preaching, it rejoices and exults and blooms, decorated with the beauty and fragrance of the virtues. There was given to it also the glory of Lebanon, that is, of the ancient people, whom ^B He also called Carmel, the glory and honor of which is piety, religion, friendship with God, the sublimity of the glory of the Law, the abundance of divine gifts, and the richness of graces. And again: "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry, you who are not in labor; for the children of the desolate are many more than of her who has a husband." For the Church which we have pointed out was barren, and void of the fruits of virtue at first, but later, having received the seeds of piety, it became a mother of many children, overcoming in its multitude the Jewish synagogue, whose husband was God in the beginning, who loved, provided for, and guarded it, or even the Law. ^C Again, in the person of God and the Father, Isaiah, addressing the Son and God, says: "Behold, I have given you for a covenant of nations, to establish the earth, and to inherit the inheritance of the wilderness," and the rest. For through David also He promised to the Son, saying: "And I will give you the nations as your inheritance." And the same David entreated the Father concerning these things, saying: "Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them." And Isaiah likewise has spoken in the person of such a lawgiver: "A law shall go forth from me into the light of the nations, and in my arm the nations shall hope." ^D What other law is this, besides the evangelical one, which illuminated the nations wandering in the darkness of ignorance? For the Mosaic law had already gone forth many years prior.

Of the same.

Regarding the new covenant of the Gospel, Isaiah again prophesied, saying: "From Sion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." For our Lord Jesus Christ, now sitting on Mount Sion and teaching, and now remaining in the city of Jerusalem, ^B gave the law and the word of the Gospel. For the prophet does not speak now concerning the Mosaic law. For how could he, which was enacted at Sinai, but not in Sion, nor in Jerusalem, and that long ago, before Isaiah, just as the evangelical one was long after Isaiah? Wherefore he aptly said that it "shall go forth," for the old had already gone forth. Concerning this new one, Jeremiah also has prophesied, saying: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will make with you a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with your fathers in the day I took hold of their hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my covenant, and I neglected them." These and such things were overshadowed so that the books might not be utterly destroyed. For where those who saw Him present, and performing miracles, ^C and providing perfect proof of His own divinity,

did not accept Him, but urged Him onto the cross, would they have spared the prophecies concerning Him, had they received them unveiled and naked? ^A Yet regarding the fact that we were to be called by the name of Christ, Isaiah foretold it saying: "You, the Lord shall destroy, but to those who serve me a new name shall be called, and it shall be blessed upon all the earth." And again: "The nations shall see your glory, and all kings your righteousness, and the new name shall be called, which the Lord himself shall name." Hosea also foretold: "And it shall be," he says, "in the last days, His name shall be manifest in all the earth, and in His name shall many peoples be called, and they shall walk in His ways and live in them."

Of the same.

"And in thee they shall pray, because God is in thee, and there is no God besides thee. For Thou art God, and we knew not." Now, the phrase, "And in thee they shall pray," is a prophecy regarding those who have believed in Christ. But the phrase, "Because God is in thee," declares the divinity in the flesh that was assumed. But the phrase, "For Thou art God, and we knew not," indicates a certain excuse for the Jews in the coming judgment, though it be foolish and unacceptable. ^B If Christ were a deceiver, how did everything that He foretold come to pass in the end? As for instance, the things concerning the desolation of the temple of Jerusalem, and the capture and destruction of the city, and the total slaughter of the Jews, and all things concerning His disciples, and the miracles in His name, and simply everything.

Item: Against the Hebrews, the most seasonable chapters selected from the great John Chrysostom, from the volume which contains his discourses against the Jews.

If you were to see some venerable and illustrious man led into a tavern or a den of thieves, and subsequently were to observe him treated there with contumely and blows, enduring the most grave insolence of those brawling there, would you for that reason admire the tavern or the den, because that famous man had been led into it? Or would you rather detest the things you were seeing, and shrink back from them, because such a man was treated there in such unworthy fashion? ^C You must consider the synagogue of the Jews to be a place of similar sort, for they bring Moses and the prophets into it to treat them with ignominy rather than with honor. For when they say that they have said nothing concerning Christ and His incarnation, and what is more, even corrupt the very passages of theirs which teach this, do they not plainly visit them with ignominy? For even the temple of Serapis held these books, having been transcribed by Ptolemy Philadelphus, yet for that reason would no one deem that temple holy. ^D Those books indeed possessed their own holiness, but they did not impart it to the temple on account of the defilement of those gathering therein. But even the Azotians, having once taken the ark, brought it into their temple, and nothing

of what was there remained pure. It is just, therefore, for ^A the Jews and their synagogue to be execrated, especially because they are insane and rage against Moses and the prophets. For the reading of the books, if faith is absent, can make neither the place nor the readers holy. Therefore, it has been justly said to them: "Your house is become unto me a den of hyena,"—a hyena, that is, a cruel and execrable wild beast.

*Of the same.* If they did not have the prophets, if they did not read the sacred books, they would not be so detestable and profane. But now they deserve no pardon, because, having the heralds of truth, they contend against them and against the truth itself.

*Of the same.* For the Jewish feasts, God commanded to observe not only a time, but also a place. For just as the time for the Passover is the fourteenth day of the first month, and the place is Jerusalem, so indeed it is with the others. But the time of the feasts is different, whereas the place is one. And it was not ^B permitted to transgress either the time or the place. Or rather, in the case of the Passover, it was permitted by necessity to transgress the time, but the place, by no means. For "You cannot," He says, "perform the Passover in any one of the cities which the Lord your God gives to you, except in the only place which the Lord your God shall choose." What then? Does He contradict Himself, having legislated to sacrifice in one place, yet having destroyed that very place and made it inaccessible to the Jews? By no means. But because He did not even wish to give them sacrifices at the beginning, yet observing them to be crazed, anxious, and desirous of sacrifices, and prepared, if they did not receive them, to desert to idolatry, He allowed them by way of concession, transferring these sacrifices from the idols to Himself. And He permitted the lesser evil, so that they might not fall into the greater. Then, by a most wise method, He removed these as well, having limited the sacrifices to one city, and later destroying this city, so that, not being able to sacrifice outside it due to the Law, they might be ingeniously rid of these. And what is truly ^C wonderful, the whole world is open to the Jews where it is not permitted to sacrifice, but Jerusalem alone is closed to them, where alone it was permitted to sacrifice. For just as a builder, having laid foundations, raised walls, and vaulted a roof, binds that vault to a single stone placed in the middle, and then, having removed that stone, dissolves the whole connection of the building, so also God, having defined Jerusalem as a kind of connection of the worship through sacrifices, then having destroyed it, at the same time dissolved the worship of sacrifices.

*Of the same.* That God did not impose the laws of sacrificing because He was pleased with the sacrifices, but because of the infirmities of the Jews, who were still as infants ^D

^A He showed this also through Isaiah, saying: "There is no will in me for you. I am full; burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and of goats, I do not desire. For who has required these from your hands? And if you offer me fine flour, it is a vain incense; it is an abomination to me." And again: "You have not honored me in sacrifices, nor have you served me in gifts." And through Jeremiah: "Why do you bring me frankincense from Sheba, and cinnamon from a faraway land? Your burnt offerings have not pleased me." And again: "My soul has hated your burnt offerings with your sacrifices." And in addition to these: "I did not speak to your fathers concerning sacrifices, nor did I command them concerning burnt offerings." For if He had required these, He would have brought the ancients who were before them to these things first. But now, having conceded them for a time, He again casts them away. For He says also through David: "I will not accept calves from your house, nor he-goats from your flocks. And shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" and many such things. ^B Thereafter, He introduces the rational worship, saying: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." And: "A sacrifice of praise will glorify me." And: "I will praise the name of my God with a canticle, I will magnify Him in praise." And: "It shall please God more than a young calf." And: "Sacrifice and oblation you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me," that is, the Lord's body, which is slaughtered by the priests each day and distributed to the worthy for their partaking.

*Of the same.*

Let the Jews be asked how they celebrate feast days when they have no place of celebration. Is it not manifest that they are acting lawlessly? For if the prophets who were long ago carried away into captivity did not dare to sacrifice, having lost Jerusalem—for they said: "There is not, in this time, any burnt offering, nor sacrifice, nor oblation, nor incense, nor place to offer before you, and to find mercy." ^C But even when they were compelled by those by whom they were held in servitude to sing one of the songs of Sion, they refused, saying: "How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a strange land?" And indeed, through Zechariah, God said to others: "Did you fast for me for seventy years?"—evidently those of the captivity. Where there was no sacrifice, nor song, nor, indeed, fasting, there was no feast; for every legal celebration was performed through sacrifice. How, then, do these dare to fast, or keep a feast, or in any way perform any worship prescribed by the law? That the prophets did not even sacrifice the Passover, nor perform any other festival in a strange land, is clear also from the fast of Daniel. For having begun from the third day of the first month, he fasted three weeks until the twenty-fourth day of the same; and in this month even the feast ^D

of the Pasch was, and that of the Unleavened Bread, ^A the one on the fourteenth, the other from the fifteenth to the twenty-first, during which it was not lawful to fast.

*From the same.*

If they say that they expect to recover the city, say to them: “Therefore keep quiet until you recover it.” For even the holy men who were led into captivity before you performed no legal sacrifice until they recovered it. But you, by spurning them, openly depart from the Law itself.

*From the same.*

Since there is no anointing, you have no priest; when the priest is absent, you have neither sacrifice nor any worship.

*From the same.*

God, signaling that the sacrifices established by the Law were to be abolished, said through David: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” ^B (Ps. cix, 4), who did not offer legal sacrifices, but prayers, and bread and wine, as history teaches. It is clear, therefore, that with the priesthood of Aaron, the legal polity was also taken away, and in its place a polity in keeping with the administration of Melchizedek was introduced.

*From the same.*

Nothing is more miserable than the Jews. For when they had to keep the Law, they transgressed it; but now, when they are not to keep it, they attempt to observe it, and they provoke God, not only by violating the Law, but also by observing ^C it.

*From the same.*

The Jews endured three grievous servitudes: the one in Egypt, the one in Babylon, and the [one] under Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes. God brought none of these upon them without having predicted it; rather, for each one He indicated the number of years: four hundred for the first, seventy for the second, and three and a half years and a little more for the third; and He proclaimed their freedom. And regarding the one in Egypt, God previously spoke to Abraham: “Knowing, you shall know that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own. And they shall enslave it, and they shall afflict it for four hundred years. ^D But the nation to which they shall be enslaved, I will judge; and in the fourth generation they shall return hither with much baggage” (Gen. xv, 13, 14). You have now learned the number of the years, that it is four hundred; and the most bitter servitude, in that “they shall afflict it”; and the punishment of those who enslaved them, [who were] condemned to be drowned in the waters; and the manner of the deliverance, in that “with much baggage,” that is, wealth. And regarding the one in Babylon, the prophet Jeremiah prophesied, saying: “Thus says the Lord: When seventy years are about to be fulfilled for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will establish over you my good words, to return to this place. And I will turn back the captivity”

of yours, and I will gather you from all the nations whither I have scattered you there, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from whence I removed you. You see all things foretold with truth? Therefore, Daniel did not supplicate for them before the seventy years were completed, as he himself says, so that he, too, might not hear what Jeremiah heard: “Do not pray for this people, nor make request for them, because I will not hear you.” ^A And the just man, in praying, condemned himself, saying, “We have sinned, we have acted unjustly, we have committed iniquity.” But they, full of ten thousand evils, did the opposite, saying, “We have kept thy commandments, and now we call the foreigners blessed, and they who do iniquities are built up.” For just as it is the custom for the good to be modest after their virtuous deeds, so it is the custom for the wicked to boast after their sins. ^B Daniel spoke clearly regarding the Antiochus who was called Illustrious, for he called the ram the king of the Persians, Darius, and the goat the king of the Macedonians, Alexander; and its four horns, the kings who divided his empire after Alexander had died; and later, the horn, which we have mentioned, Antiochus. Then, manifesting the overthrow of the Jewish polity that he brought about, he says: “By him, the sacrifice was disturbed, and the sanctuary will be wasted, and sin was given over the sacrifice.” For having set up an idol in the temple, he performed foul sacrifices to it. ^C “And justice was cast to the ground,” meaning the decrees of the law. And again, describing these things in another place of his prophecy more broadly from above, and coming down to Antiochus, he adds: “Arms will arise, and they will profane the sanctuary, and they will remove the *endelechismos*,” that is, the perpetual and daily sacrifices; “and they will give the abomination into it,” namely, an idol; “and they will grow weak by the sword, and by flame,” alluding to the burning of the city, “and by captivity, and by plunder; and while they are growing weak, they will be helped with a small help,” signifying a truce; then he adds the cause of the calamities: “In order to fire them,” he says, ^D “until the time of the end,” that is, so that the elect might be tested and those who have sinned might be purified. After this, having taught about the blasphemy of Antiochus against God, he adds that “he will prosper until the end of the wrath,” that is, until the wrath of God against the Jews is fulfilled. And having announced everything else, and coming to their deliverance, he says: “And Michael, the great prince who stands over the sons of thy people, will arise; and there will be a time of tribulation, such as has not been since a nation existed upon the earth until that time.” Then all the people that are found written, that is, in the book of the living—this means those who are worthy of salvation—will be saved. But from the time, he says, of the changing of the *Endelechismos*, that is, of the dissolution of the sacrifice, there will be one thousand two hundred ninety days. This period is three and a half years, and a little...

more. Behold also the length of the time. ^B Again He says: "Blessed is he who waits, and arrives at one thousand three hundred thirty-five days." This is the gospel of the deliverance. He added forty-five days, because in these days the conflict, the victory, and the complete deliverance from evils took place. He did not call blessed him who simply arrived, but him who arrived with patience, and who had not betrayed his piety. Do you see? Not until years and months, but even down to a single day, both the captivity and the deliverance were precisely calculated and announced beforehand! Josephus the Hebrew also wrote these things most clearly. For with respect to those notable captivities, both they and the lengths of their times, and the deliverances were predicted; but concerning these more notable ones, that Jerusalem would be devastated by the Romans was predicted; but that it would ever be restored was not announced at all.

Of the same author.

^C Daniel says that Gabriel came to him, and says: "Seventy weeks have been completed upon thy people," that is, they have been defined. For instead of the seventy years of the distress in Babylon, God defined for them seventy weeks of years to remain in the legal worship, and then to fall from it on account of the undertaking against Christ. For this reason He said "upon thy people," who were no longer God’s. Now, seventy weeks comprise four hundred ninety years, which, beginning from the rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem through Nehemiah, are completed until Christ was baptized. ^D For, proceeding, He declared their beginning and their end, saying: "From the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince, seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," that is, sixty-nine weeks, with one wanting to complete the seventy. For the seventy start from the rebuilding of the temple, and the sixty-nine from the time when the city of Jerusalem is also rebuilt. For He says, "The plaza and the wall shall be built." For when Christ was baptized and gained disciples, then the Jews, beginning to rage against Him, were stripped of divine care. And see how all things were clarified to Daniel by the angel. For he said, "To bring the transgression to an end," that is, when sin should be exalted—and what is more crowning than the deicide?—"and to seal up sins," so that nothing greater should remain. Therefore, Christ also said to them: "Fill up the measure of your fathers." For they indeed slew the prophets, but you [are about to slay]

the Lord of the prophets; and "let the vision and prophecy be sealed," [Note: Dan. 9:24] that is, when prophecy shall cease. For similarly Christ said: "The Law and the prophets were until John." And "the anointing shall be destroyed," he says—that is, the royal and the priestly [anointing]; "and there shall be no judgment," that is, no judge; "and he shall destroy both the city and the sanctuary,"—the Roman army shall destroy the city and the temple—"with the Leader coming," that is, with Christ aiding him, who is the Leader of those who believe in Him, who is to come again at His second advent; "and they shall be cut off," he says, "as in a flood." And again, speaking concerning the captivity, he has said: "Sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away, and upon the temple shall be the abomination of desolation," calling the statue of Titus the abomination of desolation. Therefore Christ also said again: "When you see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, let him who reads understand." ^B And then, "even until the consummation of the time, the consummation shall be given upon the desolation," calling the consummation of the time that which is fixed for the world; or let them show another time. For behold, for a thousand years now they have remained in servitude, and henceforth the consummation of the world is near. Whence also the aforementioned Josephus, writing about the capture of Jerusalem, says these things.

Furthermore, Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman rule, that Jerusalem would be taken by them, and the temple would be laid waste. And he did not dare to add anything more, knowing nowhere that anything had been written concerning deliverance from these miseries. Moreover, at different times afterwards, the dispersed Jews attempted to restore both the temple and the city; under the Emperor Hadrian, ^C they suffered myriad evils, with the foundations even being razed, and the city called Aelia after the surname of the emperor. And under Constantine the Great, when they attempted the same things, they suffered the same, and their ears were cut off, so that by that mark they might be recognized as having departed from the interdict of Christ. But under the Emperor Julian, when he was helping them to complete the work, in order to show that Christ had uttered a falsehood, fire leaped forth from the foundations being dug up, and it burned some and scattered others. And what of the fact that in other captivities prophets were with them, but in this one, no one?

Of the same

Why did you slay Christ, O Jew? "Because," he says, "He was an impostor and an enemy of God." And yet, it was ^D reasonable that you, as one who had slain the adversary of God, should receive grace from God Himself, and accept gifts. For if, often overlooking your sins, He recalled you from captivities, saying: "I do not do it for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My name's sake," [Note: Ezek 36:22] that is, lest I seem to abandon you for lack of help; much more was it equitable that He should preserve you, since you had acted nobly in having removed His adversary from the midst. But now, your nation, after the

as for your nation, after the killing of Him, it has suffered such great and grievous calamities, such as no other nation since the memory of man has suffered. For having passed through every calamity, of which every ear is full, it was finally scattered among all nations, and serves among them all in the most abject and disgraceful slavery, which has continued through all the ages. ^A But to these things, you say, "They have happened to us because of our sins." What sins? For there are no such sins as those which you committed in the past. For long ago you worshipped the calf, and were initiated into Beelphegor, and sacrificed your sons and daughters to demons, and killed the prophets, and trampled upon the laws of God, yet you did not suffer anything comparable. For although you were taken captive in various ways, you were again shown mercy, and restored to your former status. Now, however, when you are even keeping the laws and living more temperately, you are being punished more inexcusably. Why is this? Because you have committed inexcusable sins. For you nailed the Son of God to the cross. And you could not find a greater sin than this. Either, therefore, you must say that God is unjust, punishing those who brought help to Him and killed His enemy, or even against your will you must confess that you have committed the most grievous crime of all that you have ever committed. And what is that crime, if not that you inflicted death upon the Life? By this nefarious crime, indeed, after the sins which we have enumerated, I will not say even more grievous, but not even equal to it have you committed.

^B The same.

Concerning the Seraphim, Isaiah says: "And the lintel was lifted up at the voice, from which they cried, and the house was filled with smoke."

The same. When the Jew says to you, "How did the Virgin give birth?" do you say to him in turn, "How did the barren and aged Sarah give birth?" In that case there is only one impediment, which is that she did not know marriage; in this case, however, there are two, for she was not only barren, but also old. ^D

^A neither is this [the same as] that. What argument will gainsay this? Choose, therefore, which of the two impieties you wish, O new theologian, if indeed you are altogether eager to be impious. Furthermore, how do you say that the unbegotten and the begotten are not the same? If by this you mean that which is not created and that which is created, I also accept it; for that which is without beginning and that which is created are not the same by nature. But if you say that that which has begotten and that which has been begotten are not the same, it is not rightly said. For there is every necessity that they be the same; for this is the nature of the begetter and the begotten, for the begotten to be the same in nature with him who has begotten. Or again in this way: how do you say the unbegotten and the begotten are [not the same]? If you mean by this the very lack of generation and the generation itself, they are not the same. But if you mean the subjects in whom these exist, how are they not the same? Since even "unwise" and "wise" are not the same as each other, yet they are considered around the same man; and they do not cut the substance, but are cut around the same substance. ^B Or are immortality, and innocence, and immutability also the essence of God? But if this is so, there will be many essences of God, and not one; or else the divine is composed of these. For these cannot exist without composition, if indeed they are essences. These things, however, they do not say; for they are common to others also. But that which is proper and peculiar only to God, this is essence. The [heretics] would not grant that being unbegotten is of God alone, those who introduce also matter and form as unbegotten. For let us cast far away the darkness of the Manichaeans. But let it be that the unbegotten is of God alone. What of Adam? Was he not alone formed by God? Absolutely, you will say. Is he then also the only man? By no means. Why so? Because the formation is not humanity; for that which is begotten is also a man. In the same way, the unbegotten is not God alone, even if it is of the Father alone. But admit also that the begotten is God; for he is from God, even if you are exceedingly fond of the unbegotten. Furthermore, how do you call the essence of God not the position of what is, but the removal of what is not? For the word "unbegotten" signifies that it is devoid of generation, but it does not declare what that which is devoid of generation is by nature, nor what it is that possesses [this] generation. What then is the essence of God? It is for your recklessness to say this, you who thoroughly investigate even the generation itself; for us, it is a great thing, if even hereafter we might learn this, when this darkness and thickness are dissolved, as is the promise of Him who does not lie. Let this therefore be both considered and hoped for by those who are being purified for this end. We, however, will dare to say this much, that if it is a great thing for the Father to have originated from nowhere, it is no less for the Son to have proceeded from such a Father. For he might be partaker of the glory of Him who is without cause, because he is from the Cause-less, and there also attaches the honor of generation, a matter so great and so venerable to those who are not altogether grovelling on the ground ^C and material in their understanding.

^A For when the Gospel was promulgated, all became one body and have one head, Christ, and they escaped those to be feared by demons. But what He said Himself, that He came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword, is not understood as referring to a bellicose sword. For the sword which He brought is nothing other than the dissemination of His religion, and the faith in Him, which separates the faithful from the infidel, and severs their union and consensus in sinning. And these things indeed may be said concerning the prophecy of Micah. Let us look at what is said by Jeremiah. Since Christ performed many great signs, those who concurred and waited—all from the small even to the great—had their own eyes as teachers of the knowledge of God, and contemplating His divine-worthy powers, they quickly learned for themselves that He is God, as it is possible to perceive not only from the writing of the Gospels, but also from the chronicles of the Jews ^B and the historians of the Greeks. It remains, therefore, to speak regarding the sign of the advent of Christ according to Isaiah. He indicated the diverse characters of men by the differences of the tame and wild animals, and through their common dwelling showed the one fold of these, and the Churches to be constituted from them; calling him who is swift to plunder a wolf, but him who is exposed to prey and pillage a lamb; him who is crafty and varied in mind a leopard, but him who is simple a kid. And a calf is the gentle one, a bull the bold one, a lion the proud one, whom a man shall lead and pasture, aged in prudence, but a little child in guilelessness and humility, and great in virtue, but small in apparent lowliness and simplicity. Such also are the leaders of the Churches, by whom those who are led with different characters are regulated and fitted together. And again, by ox he means the laborious, by bear the gluttonous. And again, by lion the ^C governing and masterful, by ox those who are under the yoke of servitude and are submissive. And straw is the humble food of the one under the yoke. For he who submits will feed together with him who is submitted to him for the sake of the unity of the faith. And the little child is each of the leaders, as has been said, behaving as a child in malice, whose hand—that is, the teaching, because of how effective it is—is cast upon the faithless, who are the dens and hiding places and dwellings and resting places of the intelligible asps, that is, of the venomous and death-bringing demons, of whom the passions are offspring. And in another way, those who live according to Christ, laying their hand upon the demons and applying the sign of the cross, do not allow the indwelling demons to harm those who are suffering. That the Scripture frequently calls the nations beasts is clear. For God says through Hosea: "I will make a covenant in that day with the beasts of the field, and with the birds of the heaven, and with the creeping things of the earth" ^D; by a more general expression, naming the wild and cruel the beasts of the field, the more exalted ones the birds, and the lower ones the creeping things; or the birds as those devoted to astrology, and the creeping things as those who are defiled in their passions. And again through Isaiah: "The beasts of the field shall bless me"; and through Jeremiah again: "I will make a covenant in that day"

^A with the wild beasts of the field and with the birds of the sky and with the serpents of the earth. In a freer and broader sense, he calls the wild beasts of the field the fierce and cruel ones. By the birds, however, he means those who are endowed with a more sublime mind. By the serpents, indeed, those who are more abject. Or, by the birds, he means those who are devoted to the studies of astrology. And through Isaiah: "The beasts of the field," he says, "shall bless me." And through Jeremiah: "I have given," he says, "all the land to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to serve him, and the beasts of the field to labor for him." And through Ezekiel: "I will destroy," he says, "the evil beasts from the earth." To pass over for the time being those things recorded by Daniel, and with good reason. For it is said: "The man who has intelligence has been compared to the senseless beasts, and has been made like to them."

Item against the same. Of other Fathers.

If man, the most beautiful work of God, was created to His image and likeness, how is it unworthy of God to take flesh from that which He Himself fashioned to His image and likeness? Furthermore, if it was not shameful for God to fashion and create man, how will it be shameful for Him to refashion and reform him?

If the sun, which is a corruptible body, casting its rays far and wide into all parts, moves amidst muddy and filthy places, and yet does not defile its own purity, but draws in its bright rays and sends them forth again in such a way that it itself is not defiled at all, but brings much benefit to the bodies ^C that receive them: how much more did the Sun of Justice, who is the Creator of all things, whether corporeal or incorporeal, by entering into the pure flesh which He Himself had fashioned, not only contract no stain Himself, but even rendered that same flesh purer and holier?

Of the Damascene on the Sabbath. Chap. 32.

The Sabbath is called the seventh day, and it signifies rest. For God rested on that day from all His works, as the Divine Scripture says; wherefore the number of days, having advanced as far as the seventh, returns again in a circle and takes its beginning from the first. Furthermore, this number is held in honor among the Jews; for God commanded that it be honored, and that not perfunctorily, but with even the most severe penalties established for those who transgressed it. Nor did He command this without reason, but moved by certain causes which those endowed with spiritual truth and sharpness of mind understand.

As for me, however, being otherwise unskilled, insofar as I can grasp it (to begin from the lower and crasser things), since God knew that the Israelite people were gross and addicted to the flesh, and immensely prone to earthly things, and lacking any discernment, He sanctioned this law: first, so that the servant and the beast of burden might rest, as it is written: "For a righteous man pities the lives of his beasts"; ^D and second, so that they themselves, being free from earthly occupations, might gather together unto God, in psalms,

and hymns, and spiritual songs, and spending the whole of the seventh day in the study of the divine Scriptures, rest in God. For when the Law did not exist, and Scripture was not divinely inspired, the Sabbath was not consecrated to God. But after the divine Scripture was given through Moses, the Sabbath was consecrated to God, as a means for us to meditate upon this, for in it we shall exercise study, not as servants paying court to their Master as to a Father, but as ungrateful slaves, even if we truncate a small and very tiny portion of our life to offer to God; and this because we fear the correction and punishment of those in authority. For the law is not laid down for a righteous man, but for the unrighteous. Since Moses first fasted for forty days, and again spent another forty in fasting, after which he ^A served God, certainly he who subjected himself to the Sabbath through fasting, as the law commanded, was not harming himself on the day of the Sabbath. But if they say that before this law, what will they say regarding the heaven-driven Elias, who endured a journey of forty days on one meal? For he not only fasted, but also by walking, he afflicted himself during the forty days of the Sabbath, he broke the Sabbath; and God was not angry with him, but having given the law, He gave him virtue as a reward. What do they say regarding Daniel? Did he not spend three weeks without food? And what of all of Israel, who would circumcise the child on the Sabbath, if it happened to be the eighth day? Did they not keep the great fast, which was legislated for them, if they happened to fall upon the Sabbath, and will they not fast? Or do not even the priests and the Levites profane the Sabbath in the works of the tabernacle, and are they blameless? But if a beast ^B falls into a pit on the Sabbath, the one is innocent, the other, if he were to look past it, is condemned. But as for all of Israel, did they not walk around the walls of Jericho while carrying the ark of God for seven days, during which the Sabbath was certainly included?

It is clear that they were not sinning when they did this. As I said, then, in order to grant leisure for God, so that they might render to Him at least a very small portion of their life, and that both the servant and the beast might rest, the observance of the Sabbath was devised for them, for those who were still children, and enslaved under the elements of the world, and carnal, and unable to understand the Spirit. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. For as many as received Him, He gave them power to become children of God ^C to those who believe in His name; so that we are no longer slaves, but sons; no longer under the law, but under ^D [the grace of the Spirit—*the text breaks at the end of the page, continuing in the next section*].

time of our lives, and to cause that servant of ours—I mean anger and desire—to rest from sin, and to permit ourselves to have leisure for God. We must always direct all our desire toward God, and arm our anger against the enemies of God. Likewise, we must treat our beast of burden—that is, the body—by granting it relief from the servitude of sin, and compelling it to serve the divine commandments.

These are the things the spiritual law of Christ commands us, and those who keep them become superior to the Mosaic law. For when that which is perfect has come, that which is in part is done away; and through the tearing of the covering or veil of the law by the Savior’s cross, and the shining forth of the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire, the letter has grown obsolete, bodily things have ceased, the law of servitude has been fulfilled, and the law of liberty has been bestowed upon us. We also celebrate the perfect rest of human nature—I mean the day of the resurrection, in which the Lord Jesus, the Author of life and Savior, brought us into the promised inheritance for those who serve God with spiritual worship. Into this, He Himself, our forerunner, has entered after returning from death to life; and with the gates of heaven opened and made manifest to Him, He has sat down in the body at the right hand of the Father, where those who observe the law of the Spirit are subsequently to enter.

^C To us, therefore, who walk by the Spirit and not by the letter, pertains the entire rejection of carnal things, spiritual worship, and union with God. For circumcision is the rejection of bodily pleasure and of superfluous and unnecessary things. For the foreskin is nothing other than skin, the refuse of the member in which lust is stirred. Furthermore, all pleasure that is not taken from God and in God is a superfluous portion of pleasure, the figure of which is the foreskin; while the Sabbath is rest from sin. Wherefore these two things are absolutely one, and thus both together, if observed by those who act according to the Spirit, do not create even the slightest mark of moral failing.

^D Furthermore, it should be noted that the number seven signifies all the present time, just as the most wise Solomon said: "Give a portion to seven, and also to eight." And the God-inspired David, while singing a psalm about the eighth, sang of the future state of things after the resurrection from the dead. Since, therefore, the Law commanded [the people] to cease from bodily things on the seventh day and to occupy themselves with spiritual things, it mystically indicated to the true Israelite, and to him who is gifted with a mind that can see God, that this is something to be done always: to offer oneself to God and to rise above bodily things.

On the Jewish Circumcision, from the interpretation of Great John Chrysostom on the Book of Genesis.

^A Why, I ask you, are you circumcised now? For of old your ancestors were ordered to be circumcised, so that they would not be mixed up with those nations that were outside the Law. But now, since all nations have been guided by the grace of God to the light of truth, what is the profit of circumcision? For does the laying aside of the flesh contribute anything toward the freedom of the soul? Did you not clearly hear God saying: "And it shall be for a sign of a covenant" (Gen. XVII, 11)? By these words, he shows nothing other than that, on account of their great lack of judgment, they had need of such a sign and mark. For so it happens often even in human affairs: whenever we do not have trust in someone, we are eager to take some sign as a pledge from them. So too, the Lord of all, knowing the fickleness of their mind, deigned to demand this sign from them, not that this sign should remain forever, but that, once the things of that time had reached their end, the need for the sign also should be removed. For just as when some people demand a sign, they want to receive a ^B pledge, but when the matter at hand reaches its conclusion, the sign is thereafter removed; so too here, since this sign was required of you because the people of the patriarch had to be made manifest, it was necessary, once those nations for whose sake you had received the sign had either been utterly destroyed or had run to the light of the truth, that you should no longer carry about the token of your own lack of judgment, but rather be released from it and return to your former nobility. Consider for me, moreover, that that wonderful patriarch, before he received the commandment of circumcision—for he was ninety-nine years old when this was commanded—had already been pleasing to God and had been proclaimed by the Lord thousands of times. And when, at last, the things of the promise were about to proceed into action, and Isaac was to be born, and the race to be multiplied, and the patriarch was to depart ^C from this life, only then does he receive the command of circumcision, and is circumcised at such an age, so that what the patriarch had done might become a law and rule for all those to follow. And that you might learn accurately that this contributes nothing to the virtue of the soul, one can understand this from the very things that are happening now. For what does it say? "A child of eight days shall be circumcised." I believe this time was fixed by the benevolent God for two reasons: one, that in that tender age he might more easily endure the pain of the circumcision; and second, that through these very deeds we might be taught that what is done contributes nothing to the soul, but is done only for the sake of a sign. For what profit can that premature infant, who does not know what is happening and possesses no sensation, receive into his soul from this? For those are the deeds of the soul properly so-called, which come from the power of choice. For it is the work of the soul ^D to choose virtue and to flee vice. For what utility can that very tender little boy, who is almost entirely without sense and is completely ignorant of what is happening, perceive from it? For those are properly the right offices of the soul, which proceed from the will. It is a perfect work and office of the soul to embrace virtue, to flee vice, not to covet more, but to distribute kindly to the needy what one has; that

it should not be attached to present things but, while despising and scorning these, should constantly think of future things and imagine them day by day. ^A But what kind of perfect work would circumcision be? Yet the senseless and ungrateful Jews, although the truth has appeared—since they abide in the shadow and while the sun of justice has shone forth, casting the rays of its light everywhere, they still cling to the light of a lamp—and since the time demands that they be nourished by solid food, they cannot be moved away from milk, nor are they willing to hear the blessed Paul calling out and saying concerning the patriarch: *And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which is in uncircumcision* (Rom. IV, 11). See how he has taught us both things here: that he received circumcision for the sake of a sign, and that while he was still in uncircumcision, he manifested the justice which is of faith. For lest the Jew shamelessly assert that circumcision brought justice to him, for this reason this blessed man, who was educated at the feet of Gamaliel and instructed in the strictness of the law, says: Do not think, O shameless Jews, that circumcision contributed anything to his justice. ^B For indeed, having demonstrated his faith in the time of uncircumcision, he heard: *Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice* (Gen. XV, 6; Rom. IV, 3). Being, therefore, in justice through faith, he then receives circumcision for the sake of a sign, and at the same time God adds an element to his name, and afterwards He commands that he be circumcised, to show that, on account of his great virtue, He had made the righteous man His friend, and for his sake [had made friends of] his descendants as well. And just as one who has acquired a servant often changes his name and his attire, and does everything to make him recognized and to declare himself his master, so also the God of all things, when He wished to distinguish the patriarch from other men, ^C by adding one letter to his name indicated that he would be the father of many nations, and by circumcision He showed that he would have a people of his own, and that the seed to be born of him would be separated from the rest of the nations; even if they, blinded by their own hardness of heart, still wish to observe the circumcision of the flesh, not listening to Paul again saying: *If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing* (Gal. V, 2); for the Lord was born for this very reason, that He might take away all these things. And for this reason He Himself fulfilled the whole law, that He might not permit the observance of the law to proceed any further. ^D Therefore also the blessed Paul cried out: *You who are justified in the law, you are fallen from grace* (Gal. V, 4).

Item concerning circumcision. From Damascene, chapter 54.

Circumcision was given to Abraham before the law, after the blessings, after the promise, as a sign to distinguish him and those from him, and his household servants from the nations with whom he lived. This, however,

of which he lived. It is evident, for when Israel dwelt alone in the desert for forty years, not mingled with any other nation, those who were born in the desert were not circumcised, and a second law of circumcision was made. For in the time of Abraham the law of circumcision was given. Afterward it ceased for forty years in the desert, and God gave again a second time to Joshua the law of circumcision after they had crossed the Jordan, as it is written in the book of Joshua. ^B Circumcision, therefore, was a sign by which Israel was distinguished from the rest of the nations, a mark of baptism. For as circumcision cuts away not a useful member of the body, but something useless and superfluous, so through baptism sin is circumcised and cut away from us. Now that sin is a superfluous desire, and not a useful or necessary desire, is manifest. For that one should not desire anything at all, or be completely devoid of the taste of pleasure, is not possible. Wherefore, useless pleasure—that is, useless desire and pleasure—is sin, which is cut away by holy baptism, providing for us as a sign the honorable cross upon the forehead, not separating us from other nations, for all nations have attained to baptism and have been sealed with the sign of the cross, but in every nation distinguishing the faithful from the infidel. The truth therefore having been revealed, the sign, the mark, and the shadow are useless. Hence, it is now superfluous to be circumcised, and it is contrary ^C to holy baptism. For he who is circumcised is obliged to fulfill the whole law. But the Lord, that he might fulfill the law, was circumcised, and he observed the whole law and the Sabbath, that he might fulfill it and impose a limit upon it. For from the time he was baptized, and the Holy Spirit appeared to men descending upon him in the form of a dove, from that time the spiritual worship, and the way of life, and the kingdom of the heavens have been proclaimed.

Titulus IX. Against Simon the Samaritan, and Marcion the Pontic, and Manes the Persian, and the Manichaeans, of the Great Athanasius.

Certain ones, having fallen away from ecclesiastical teaching and having suffered shipwreck concerning the faith, imagine that the nature of evil is self-subsisting. And besides the true Father of Christ, they fashion for themselves another God, and him also unbegotten, ^D and the creator of evil, and the author of malice, and the creator of the world. These men one might easily refute, both from the divine Scriptures and from that very faculty of reason in men, through which they rave as they fashion these things. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, therefore, in the Gospels says, confirming the words of Moses: "The Lord thy God, the Lord is one." And, "I confess to thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth." But if there is one God...

and this is the Lord of heaven and earth, how could there be another God besides him? And where ^A would the god of these people be, when the one and true God fills all things within the compass of heaven and earth? Or how could there be another creator, of whom the God and Father of Christ himself is Lord, according to the voice of the Savior? Unless, perchance, they would say they are of equal station, and that the evil one could also be lord of the good God. But if they say this, mark into what great impiety they fall. For among those who have equal power, one cannot be found who is superior or better. And indeed, if one exists against the will of the other, equal is the power of both, and their weakness is also equal; equal is the power, because they overcome one another's will in existing; equal too is the weakness, because things happen contrary to their will, since ^B both matters proceed contrary to the will of the others. For the good one exists contrary to the will of the evil one, and the evil one exists contrary to the will of the good one. Furthermore, this also might one say to them: if the visible works are the works of the evil one, what is the work of the good one? For nothing is seen except the creation of the creator. And what, moreover, is the sign of the good one being, when there are no works of his by which he might be known? For the creator is known from his works. Or how, in general, could two things be contrary to one another? Or what is it that divides them, so that they might be apart from one another? For it is impossible for them to be together, because they are destructive of one another. Nor could one be in the other, because their nature is dissimilar and does not allow for conjunction. ^C Therefore, a third thing will exist that separates them, and this too must be God. But what nature would this third thing have? Is it similar to the good, or to the evil? For it is impossible for it to be of both. Since, therefore, their fabrication is convicted of being rotten, it is necessary that the truth of ecclesiastical doctrine shine forth, which teaches that evil did not proceed from God, nor is it in God, nor was it made from the beginning, nor does any nature or essence of it exist, but that men, by thinking of the privation of the good, began to invent and conjure up for themselves things that are not, and just as they desire. For just as if someone, while the sun is shining and illuminating the whole earth with its rays, were to close his eyes, he creates for himself darkness, which does not exist; from which it happens that he walks in the darkness, erring and often stumbling, and falling, ^D and rushing headlong from steep places, thinking that the light is not present, but darkness; and while he thinks he sees, he sees nothing at all; so also the soul of men, by closing its eye, through which it is able to see God, has thought up for itself evils, in which, while moving, it knows not that even while it seems to itself to be doing something, it does nothing. For it imagines things that are not, and remains not such as it was made, but appears such as it has commingled itself to be. For it was made to see God and to be illuminated by God, but it, instead of God, sought out corruptible things and darkness, as the Scripture somewhere signifies: "God made man upright," it says, "but they themselves have sought out many schemes."

^A Of the same, against Valentinus, who in many things agreed with the aforementioned heretics.

How do you assert that Christ was clothed in heavenly flesh, and not human, when the Apostle declares: "He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one"? For which reason, he says, he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: "I will declare your name to my brothers." Clearly, from one, namely Adam, according to the genealogy of Luke. And again: "Since the children have shared in flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same." And removing the suspicion of heavenly flesh, he added: "For he does not take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham." Whence he had to be like his brothers in all things. And many such things. But the Lord, they say, has said in the Gospels: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven." And the Apostle again: "The first man is from the earth, earthly; the second man ^B is the Lord from heaven." Behold, they say, he is called a heavenly man on both accounts. To whom we shall answer that, since Christ is double in his natures, he is singular in his person, and appropriates the things of each nature. And just as the Apostle, when speaking of those who killed Christ, that "if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory," does not mean that the divinity, which is the Lord of glory, suffered, but the assumed nature; so also in these passages, the Son and God himself is said to have suffered because of the one person of the divinity, which has also become the person for the human nature; but he suffered according to his human nature. And he is said to have both descended from heaven and to be in heaven according to the person of the divinity; but to be the Son of Man according to the nature ^C assumed later after his descent from heaven. And again, the same Lord, because of the one person, is the second man because of the joined humanity, but from heaven because of his divinity. For if we do not understand each appropriately, we will suspect a contradiction in the Apostles. For how is he like us earthly beings in all things, or how is he our brother if he is clothed in heavenly flesh? And ten thousand other absurdities will follow.

Item against the same, from the second discourse of Basil the Great on the Hexaemeron.

"And darkness was upon the abyss." They do not interpret darkness as it is by nature—namely, a certain air non-illuminated, or a place obscured by the interposition of a body—but as an evil power, or rather as evil itself, which has its beginning from itself, but which opposes ^D and is contrary to the goodness of God. For if God is light, they say, it is logically consistent that the power which opposes him should be darkness, having its beginning from no other source, but self-begotten as an evil. Which indeed is nothing else but evil itself, which fights against souls, produces death, and pursues virtue as an enemy.

^A They are deceived by the words of the prophet. But from this, are not the wicked and godless doctrines interwoven? What grievous wolves, tearing asunder the flock of God, have not taken their beginning from this little phrase and spread over souls? Are there not Marcionites? Are there not Valentinians? Is there not the abominable heresy of the Manichaeans? If one were to call it the putrid pus of the Churches, he would not be mistaken. That the earth was invisible is confirmed by that which follows: because the abyss, which was attached to it, was itself also wrapped in darkness. Wherefore the abyss is not a multitude of opposing powers, as some have opined. Nor is darkness some primal and wicked power which opposes the good itself. For two things that set themselves against each other with equal strength will entirely destroy one another, and will be perpetually distracted by such a war that they have no respite, and constantly exhaust each other. And if one should surpass the other in power, it will entirely consume that which has been overcome. Therefore, if they say the opposition of evil to good is balanced, they introduce an unceasing war and perpetual destruction, as both are in turn conquering and being conquered; but if the good exceeds in power, what is the reason that the nature of evil has not been utterly destroyed? But if—which it is not lawful to say, I wonder—why do they not flee and ^B abhor themselves, who invent such impious and detestable curses? Yet it is not pious to say that evil originates from God himself, since no contrary is produced by its contrary. For neither does life beget death, nor is darkness the source of light, nor is disease the creator of health. If then, he says, it is neither unbegotten nor created by God, whence does it have its nature? For no one who enjoys the gift of life will deny that evils exist. What then shall we say? That evil is not a living and animate nature, but a disposition in the soul which is opposed to virtue, occurring in the sluggish because of their falling away from the good. Do not therefore search for evil outside of yourself, nor imagine some primordial nature of wickedness, but let each man acknowledge himself the author of the evil within him. Of that, then, of which you are master, do not seek the beginnings from elsewhere, but acknowledge that evil, strictly and truly so called, takes its beginning from voluntary falls. For if it happened against our will, then there would not be such fear of the laws hanging over those who transgress, nor would the punishments of the courts so measuredly requite the crimes of wrongdoers according to their deserts. ^C Item in eundem. Ex libro, qui Gregorio Nyssæ pontifici ascribitur, De cognitione Dei.

And darkness, says Moses, was upon the abyss. From which these men maliciously reasoning say that there were shadows, of which the creative cause is the evil principle. Then also: And God divided between the light and between the darkness. If light is, and darkness is, therefore that which is separated from the light [is something]. These things the dark-minded ones say, who are blind in the light. But we say that darkness is not ^D

^A a substance, but an accident, and nothing other than the absence of light. For when the heavens were covered at the beginning by the object obstructing the things around them, darkness came into being, as is accustomed to happen even now in things that are obstructed. The separation of these is that measurable interval of the absence of light. And in a certain way, the absence and privation of light becomes a state and a subsisting existence for darkness. But an evil principle—that is to say, an evil God—does not exist. For if He is God, He is not evil, but the fountain of goodness; and if He is evil, He is not God. For how can God be malice or sin? But if these things were God, all things would vanish and be overturned.

*From the same.* How can there be two principles, one good and one evil? For the good and the evil—that is, the bad—are contrary to one another, and they are destructive of one another and incompatible. Therefore, each one will be in a part of the whole, and it will be circumscribed by this part; and they will touch one another and be destroyed by one another, or there will be something in between separating them, and behold, three principles. And again, they either dwell in peace, which the evil one cannot do, or they will fight, which the good one does not wish, nor can he. For the evil one, being at peace, is not evil; and the good one, fighting, is not good. Therefore, there are not two principles, especially when they are so contrary and at such great enmity. There is only one, which is wholly good. But the evil one is not a principle, but a privation and a failure of the good.

*From the same.* ^B If both the good and the evil are by nature gods, they have another principle. And the dyad is not a principle; on the contrary, the monad is the principle of the dyad. But if they are not principles, they will not be gods at all. Since, therefore, the monad is the principle of all things, then God is one, the cause and creator of all things.

*From the same.* If the good is a being, the evil is not a being. If the evil is a being, the good is not, according to the principle of immediate contraries, such as health and sickness, life and death. Therefore, God is not evil. ^C

*From the same.* The good God has goodness essentially and naturally, but the evil one would necessarily have the privation of goodness as his state. And how can he be God, who comes from a falling away and a deficiency? ^D

*From the same.* If there were two gods, or three, or simply many, the world would have perished long ago, being acted upon and moved in different ways at different times. But that it is always moved and managed in the same way and in the same manner, and the harmony, symphony, order, permanence, and preservation through all things, proclaims one and the same cause, creator, provider, and sustainer.

From the same.** ^A If this lower world is evil and wicked, then you too are evil and wicked, since you are a part of it. But if you are wicked by nature, truth is not in you. For truth is clearly a good; but good is alien to evil. Now, for those who lack the truth, their teachings are false and rest on no solid foundation.

**From the same.** ^B If you confess that this world is good, yet that the God and Father is evil and not the creator of this world, then there must surely be another evil world created by that evil God. But such a world does not exist; therefore, God is not evil. For God is the principle and the creative cause; but since things that are created and founded do not exist [as a principle], there is therefore no principle [of evil], nor is God evil.

**From the same.** ^C The God of the Old Testament, they say, does not have the divine foreknowledge that encompasses all things. For He asks Adam, "Where are you?" and Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" and Abraham, "Where is Sarah your wife?" and many things of this sort. To these we say: the questions indicated arise not from ignorance, but rather from knowledge. For if He had not known that both Adam and Cain had sinned, He would not have asked them immediately; and this is clear from what follows. For He spoke to Adam, even though he had not yet confessed anything about the eating: "Who told you that you were naked, unless you ate from the tree from which I commanded you alone not to eat?" And to Cain, even though he too was trying to hide: "The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me." ^D These are not the words of one who is ignorant, but of one who knows clearly and distinctly, who by this form of questioning wishes to persuade those who have sinned to repent, when they perceive that they have been caught. Likewise, the words, "Where is Sarah your wife?" declare that He is not ignorant that Abraham has a wife and that she is called Sarah. And He who knows these things surely knew where she was. For otherwise, when Sarah was standing behind the door and laughing secretly, hearing that she would be a mother, He would not have said, "Why did Sarah laugh?" He even provided the cause of the laughter, saying that she reasoned within herself, "Shall I truly bring forth a child?" For these are the words of Him who knows even the heart and the mind. Moreover, He asked, "Where is Sarah your wife?" with the intention that Abraham, learning from this that He is a foreknower and knows all things, might pay attention to His superiority and for the future might believe all things which He might say. And the statement also regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, that "I will go down and see whether, according to their clamor, they have fully realized [their wickedness], or if not, that I may know," is spoken in the way of divine dispensation, teaching us not to punish on the basis of foreknowledge, but to await the actual investigation. For if He did not know, how

could He have said, "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has come to me"? The earth, he says, cries out even before the events, or rather the events themselves cry out. There are many such interrogations not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New, which however all contain a mystery, and effect something else. For it is the property of God to know all things, and he who does not have knowledge of all things is not the God of all. ^A

From the same.

How is it that you say the lawgiver of the Old Testament is just, but the one of the New is good, and on these grounds contend that they are one different from the other? For if that which is just is good, the just one will be altogether good. For the just and the good are not antithetical to each other; and the good one is altogether just. Since there are countless uses declaring that the lawgiver of the Old Testament is good, I will bring forward one: "Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good," ^B let the house of Israel say that He is good, and the two verses that follow. And the lawgiver of the New also: "And My judgment is just," and to John: "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." That there is one lawgiver for both the Old and the New, Jeremiah has foretold, saying: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will establish a new covenant with you, not according to the covenant which I established with your fathers, when I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in My covenant, and I disregarded them." And again, Christ himself, who is the lawgiver of both this and that, said: "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it"; ^C that is to say, to perfect by a greater philosophy, one fitting for men, that which was incomplete because of the incompleteness of the Hebrews. For that was a pedagogue training us for the Gospel, and this is the mystagogue teaching more perfect things. And the one was schoolmastering our bodies, while this one perfects our souls. Therefore, the Old is a coworker to the New, and a preparation, and a path-making. ^D

Item against the same, from the great John Chrysostom, from the discourse on the words: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me."

For if, when these things took place, the wicked and villainous mouth of the devil, through Marcion of Pontus, and Valentinus, and Manichaeus the Persian, and many other heretics, attempted to overturn the account of the dispensation, and uttered a certain satanic sound, saying that He was not even made flesh, nor did He put on a body, but that this was a semblance, and a phantasy, and a shadow, and a pretense—even though the passions, the death, and the tomb cry out—if none of these things had happened,

how much more would they have sown these wicked doctrines of impiety

From the same, from the interpretation of the mystical supper.

^A Since the followers of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Manichaeus were to come, who would deny this dispensation, for that reason He continually made mention of His death, even through the mysteries, so that no one might be deceived by false reasonings and arguments, but that through that sacred table He might both save and instruct.

From the same, from the interpretation concerning the Magi.

Let Paul of Samosata be ashamed, let Marcion be ashamed, who did not wish to see what the Magi saw, those progenitors of the Church—for I am not afraid to call them such. Let Marcion be ashamed, seeing God worshipped in the flesh. For that He is in the flesh, the swaddling clothes and the manger testify. But that they did not worship Him as a mere man, is shown by the fact that they offered to Him, while He was at a tender age, such gifts as it was fitting to offer to God.

From the same, from the interpretation of the words: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth 1.

If a Manichaean should step forward and say that matter existed beforehand, or Marcion, or Valentinus, or the Greeks—oppose them with these words: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But if he does not believe the Scripture, then avoid him as a madman and one out of his mind. For if a man does not have faith in the Creator of all things, and argues that the truth is a lie, ^C what forgiveness will he ever obtain? But if the enemies of the truth persist in opposing, saying that it is impossible for anything to be produced out of nothing, ask them whether the first man was formed from the earth or from something else. They will surely answer that it was from the earth, and they will acknowledge it. Let them tell us, then, how the nature of the flesh came to be from the earth? For from the earth, mud and bricks, tiles and pottery might come to be. How then did the nature of the flesh come to be? How did bones, and nerves, and arteries, and fat, and skin, and nails, and hair, and the qualities of various substances come from one underlying matter? ^D Yet they would not be able to open their mouth at all against these things. But why do I speak of our body? Let them tell us concerning the bread which we eat daily, how, being of one kind, it is transformed into blood, and phlegm, and bile, and various humors? And the bread is often wheat-colored, while the blood is red or black. If, therefore, they could never explain to us these things which we see before our eyes every day, much less will they be able to explain the rest of God’s works. But if, after such a wealth of arguments, they obstinately wish to resist and defend their own opinion, we shall not even then cease to repeat these same things to them: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." For this one word can overthrow all their towers and ramparts, and thoroughly refute and confute all human arguments, and them, if at length...

1 Gen. 1, 1.

they should wish to repent, it will have the power to guide into the way of truth. ^A

*From the same place.*

But those who are held fast by error, not attending to the sequence of what has been said, nor listening to the blessed Moses saying: *"In the beginning God created heaven and earth,"* and then adding: *"And the earth was invisible and unorganized"*—for it was covered by darkness and waters, since God had not yet willed to bring it forth from the beginning—say that matter pre-existed, and likewise darkness. What can be more foolish than this madness? Do you hear that God in the beginning made heaven and earth, and that existing things came to be from what did not exist, and do you say that matter pre-existed? What wise man and person of sound mind would rave in such a way? Is He who creates a man, so as to need already prepared matter in order to display His works? He is God, to whom all things obey, who created all things by word and command. For behold, He said [the word] alone, and light was made, and the darkness departed. ^B

*Of the same, from the interpretation on the five loaves.*

But why does He not make them out of nothing, so as to stop the mouth of Marcion and Mani, who deprive Him of the procreation of things? Nay, rather, by His deeds He shows that all things which are seen were founded and procreated by Him, and that He is the one who bestows fruits, who from the beginning said: *"Let the earth sprout with the herb of grass,"* and *"let the waters bring forth crawling creatures of living souls."* For it is no less a work to make so many loaves from five loaves, and so many fishes from two fishes, which declares Him to be the Lord of the land and the sea, than to have shown forth fruit from the earth and crawling creatures from the waters. ^C

*Of the same, from the interpretation on those words: “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.”*

Those who suffer from the disease of the Manichaeans wish for this to have been said about the law; but those things which were said above refute their opinion. For if He were speaking about the law, why did He previously defend it? Why does He fight for it? Saying, *"Why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"* And why does He bring into the midst the prophet saying: *"This people honors me with their lips,"* and the following? Therefore, these things were said not about the law, but about them themselves and their doctrine. For if God says: *"Honor your father and your mother,"* how can it be that what was said by God is not a plant of God? And that which follows shows that it was said about them and their doctrine; for He adds: *"They are blind guides of the blind."* But if He had wished for it to be understood of the law, He would have said: "The blind is the guide of the blind." But He did not say it in this way, but ^D

^A freed the former from the accusation and cast the whole blame upon the latter.

From the same passage.

Let us then question those who attack the Law: is the commandment by which we are forbidden to be angry contrary to that by which we are forbidden to kill, or is it rather the perfection and confirmation of it? It is clear that this is the fulfillment of that, and greater for this reason. For he who is not carried away to anger will much more easily abstain from murder; and he who restrains his own soul will much more easily restrain his hands. For anger is the root of murder; he, therefore, who cuts away the root will much more surely cut down the branches, or rather, he will not even allow them to grow in the first place. ^B Therefore, He was not legislating this for the destruction of the Law, but for its greater observance. For with what intention did the Law itself decree these things? Was it not so that no one should kill his neighbor? If the Law had ordered one to kill, it would have commanded things contrary to itself. For the command "kill" is the opposite of "do not kill." If, then, it does not even allow one to be angry, it confirms all the more that which is commanded by the Law. For he who studiously takes care not to kill anyone will not restrain himself from murder as well as he who has also slain anger itself. For the latter is much further removed from the attempt.

But that we may convince them even more, let us bring into the midst all things that are said by them. And what are these? They affirm that the God who fashioned this world, who makes His sun rise upon the evil and the good, and who rains upon the just and the unjust, is evil. But those among them who are more moderate temper the matter thus, that they concede He is merely just, but deny that He is good. They assign to Christ another father, who does not exist, and who has made none of the things that are. They say that the one who is not good remains within his own bounds and guards what is his own, but that the one who is good covets what is alien and what he did not create. Do you recognize the children of the devil? How they draw words from their father’s fountain, speaking in such a way as to deprive God of the creation of the world, when John cries out: "He came unto His own, and the world was made through Him." ^C Then, examining and weighing the Law in the Old Testament, which commands that an eye be plucked out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, they impiously attack it, saying: "And how could He be good who speaks these things?" What, then, do we answer to this? That it indicates the greatest kind of benevolence of God. For He did not establish this law so that we might pluck out one another’s eyes, but rather that, terrified by it, we might refrain from committing against another what we ourselves would fear. Just as He threatened destruction to the Ninevites, not to destroy and abolish them (for if He had decided to do that entirely, He should have remained silent), but so that, by fear, He might make them better and extinguish the anger with which He was inflamed against them, so also toward those who are quick to leap out at the eyes of others, He set a punishment, so that, even if they are not willing to act from a good disposition, they might at least abstain from cruelty. ^D As therefore, by the fear of punishment, He made them better, and thus for those who are prompt to pluck out the eyes of others

^A ¶ Item against the same. From the book of Saint Cyril written to the Emperor Theodosius.

These words of the Apostle concerning the Savior: *In the likeness of men made, and in habit found as man*, the heretics seize upon, so that they may defend and confirm the lies of their execrable doctrine. For Arius, and Eunomius, and Apollinarius interpret "likeness" and "habit" in such a way as to signify only a certain species of our nature. But the other hosts of heretics interpret "likeness" and "habit" as a certain shadow, and image, and form similar to a body. And after other things: But we, that He was made *in the likeness of man*, and found in habit—or known—as a man, understand it in this way: that He assumed our nature, and was equal and similar to us. Equal, because He took the form of a servant, that is, the nature of man; similar, because He was without seed. For what is born of a woman is human; but what is born of a virgin is indeed more excellent than the human condition. Therefore he said *in the likeness*, because while in other respects He was equal to us and on a par with us regarding nature, He was not, however, conceived from seed. And the same thing is signified by those words, *and in habit, or figure, found as man*. For he spoke of a "figure" because, although He had the human species and nature, and truly put it on, He nevertheless had something more excellent than man, because He was not a pure and simple man, but was joined with divinity. But if we admit that the Savior assumed the nature of man only by appearance and a certain image and simulation, the labor of the Apostles was vain, the promulgation of the Gospel is vain, and finally, the hope of salvation is vain.

^B

Chapter XXIX

That there are not two principles, one good and the other evil, we shall understand from this. Good and evil are contraries, and they mutually destroy one another, and neither of them can exist in the other nor with the other. Therefore they will be separate in the very universe of things, and first they will be circumscribed in such a way that they exist not only in the world, but one in one part of the world, and the other in another. Now, who has marked out for each its own region? For they will not say that they have come together and entered into a pact with one another. Since evil would not be evil if it were joined by friendship with good, nor would good be good if it agreed with evil. But if some third party has ^C marked out the own dwelling-place for each of them, that one will rather be God. However, one of two things is necessary: that they either touch one another and mutually destroy each other, or that there be some medium between them, in which there will exist neither evil nor good, just as a certain partition separating them from one another.

And in this way there will not be two, but ^B three principles. Now, of these it is necessary that either one be at peace—which evil cannot be, for that which is at peace is not evil—or that one fight, which the good cannot be, for that which fights is not perfectly good. Or else the evil fights, while the good does not fight back, but is destroyed by the evil, or is always being grieved and treated badly, which is not a hallmark of the good. Therefore, there is one good principle, free from all evil. But if they say, "Whence comes evil?"—for it is impossible for evil to have its origin from the good—we reply that evil is nothing other than the privation of the good, and a turning aside from that which is according to nature to that which is against nature. For nothing is evil by nature; for all things that God has made are very good, according to the state in which they were made. Thus, as long as they remain as they were created, they are very good; but if they voluntarily deviate from their proper natural state into the contrary, they consist in evil. Therefore, all things by nature serve and obey their Creator. But when any of the creatures, of its own accord, rejects the command and becomes disobedient to the One who made it, it establishes evil within itself. For evil is neither an essence nor a property of an essence, but an accident, that is, an involuntary turning aside from that which is according to nature to that which is against nature, which is sin. Whence, then, is sin? It is the invention of the self-willed mind of the devil. Is the devil, therefore, evil? Not insofar as he was made; for he was created by the Creator God as a most luminous and brilliant angel, endowed with free will, as a rational being. But he voluntarily and willingly departed from the virtue that was congruent with his own nature, and fell into the darkness of malice, having become distant from God, who alone is good and the giver of life. For from Him all that is good derives its goodness. And in that he became distant from Him in mind—for it was not in place—he came to be in evil.

TITLE X.

Against Sabellius. From the interpretation of Saint Cyril on the Gospel of John.

If the Son is the same as the Father, what is the reason for the distinction of names? ^D For if He did not beget another, why is He called Father? And how, in any way, is He the Son if He was not begotten by the Father? Since, therefore, the divine Scriptures proclaim that the Son was begotten, and the truth of the matter is so, the Father and the Son exist in their own persons, individually, since the one that is begotten is distinct from the one that begets. The blessed Paul, writing to the Philippians concerning the Son, says: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Who, then, is He who did not esteem it robbery to be equal with God? Must we not necessarily say that one is He who is in the form of God, and the other is He whose the form is? All admit this as self-evident. Why, therefore, not one...

[GREEK COLUMN] ^A quiddam numero sunt Pater et Filius, sed in sua uterque consistit persona, et quamvis unus ab uno sit, nempe Filius a Patre, unam tamen essentiam et naturam habent. Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, ἔφασκεν ὁ Σωτήρ, ὡς εἰδὼς δηλονότι καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἰδίως ὑφεστηκότα, καὶ τὸν Πατέρα. Εἰ δὲ μὴ οὕτως ἔχει τοῦ πράγματος ἡ ἀλήθεια, τί μὴ τηρήσας τῇ ἑνάδι τὸ πρέπον ἔφασκεν, Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἓν εἰμι; Ἐπειδὴ δὲ εἰς πληθυντικὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸ σημαινόμενον ἐξαπλοῖ, δῆλος ἂν εἴη λοιπὸν τὴν τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἀνατρέπων ὑπόνοιαν.

Ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ὄντα τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἐπιδεικνύων ἑαυτὸν ὁ Υἱός, φησί που πάλιν· Ἐγὼ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον, καὶ ἥκω. Πῶς οὖν οὐχ ἕτερος ἔσται παρ' αὐτὸν, ὡς ἐν ὑποστάσει, καὶ ἀριθμῷ, παντὸς ἡμᾶς ἀναπείθοντος λόγου τὸ ἔκ τινος προελθὸν ἕτερον εἶναι παρ' ἐκεῖνο νοεῖν, ἀφ᾽ οὗ δὴ καὶ προελήλυθεν; Οὐκοῦν ἀληθῆς οὐδαμῶς τοῖς δι' ἐναντίας ὁ λόγος.

^B Ἐξ ὀργῆς ἐμπεπρῆσθαι Θεοῦ τὰς τῶν Σοδομιτῶν πόλεις ἡ θεία λέγει Γραφή. Ἐξηγουμένη δὲ ὅπως αὐτοῖς ὁ θεῖος ἐπενήνεκται θυμὸς, καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐκδιδάσκουσα σαφῶς, Ἒβρεξε, φησί, Κύριος πῦρ παρὰ Κυρίου ἐπὶ Σόδομα, πῦρ, καὶ θεῖον. Ἐπεὶ καὶ αὕτη τοῖς ἐκεῖνα πλημμελεῖν εἰωθύειν ἡ μερὶς τοῦ ποτηρίου πρεπωδεστάτη. Ποῖος οὖν ἄρα Κύριος παρὰ ποίου Κυρίου τὸ πῦρ ἐπαφῆκε, καὶ τὰς τῶν Σοδομιτῶν κατέφλεξε πόλεις; Ἀλλ' ἔστι δῆλον ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ πάντα δι' Υἱοῦ ἐνεργῶν, ^C ἐπεὶ καὶ δύναμις αὐτοῦ καὶ βραχίων ἐστὶν, αὐτὸν Σοδομίταις ὕειν ἐποίει τὸ πῦρ. Ὅτε τοίνυν Κύριος παρὰ Κυρίου τὸ πῦρ ἐκείναις ἐφίησι, πῶς οὐχ ἕτερος, ὅσον εἰς τὸ ἰδίως ὑπάρχειν, παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ὁ Υἱὸς παρὰ τὸν Πατέρα; Τὸ γὰρ ἒν ὡς ἐξ ἑνὸς ἐν τούτῳ σημαίνεται.

Ἐξαπόστειλον τὸ φῶς σου, καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειάν σου. Ποῖον οὖν ἄρα ἐστὶ φῶς; Ποία δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια αὐτοῦ; Λέγοντος ἄκουε τοῦ Υἱοῦ· Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς, καὶ, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀλήθεια. Εἰ δὲ πέμπεται πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ Πατρὸς, τουτέστιν ὁ Υἱὸς, πῶς οὐχ ἕτερός ἐστι παρ' αὐτὸν, ὅσον εἰς τὸ ἰδίως ὑπάρχειν, εἰ καὶ ἓν ἐστιν ὡς πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὅσον εἰς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας ταυτότητα; ^D Εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτως ἔχειν οἷονται τινες, ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ καὶ εἷς ἐστι Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς, τί μὴ ἕτερον ἐποιεῖτο τὸν τῆς εὐχῆς τρόπον ὁ πνευματοφόρος βοῶν, Ἐλθὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὦ φῶς καὶ ἀλήθεια; Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸν Ἐξαπόστειλον, λέγει, δῆλος ἂν εἴη λοιπὸν ἕτερον μὲν τὸν ἀποστέλλοντα εἰδὼς, ἕτερον δὲ τὸν ἀποστελλόμενον. Ὁ δὲ τῆς ἀποστολῆς τρόπος νοείσθω θεοπρεπῶς.

Ἐπεὶ δὲ τῷ Σαβελλίῳ ἀντίθετός ἐστιν Ἄρειος· ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ τὰ τρία πρόσωπα συναιρῶν εἰς ἕν, ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν φύσιν ἐδογμάτιζεν· οὗτος δὲ τὴν μίαν φύσιν διαιρῶν, τρεῖς φύσεις καὶ τρία πρόσωπα τοὐναντίον ἀντεδογμάτιζεν· οἱ ἄλλοι Πατέρες, Ἀθανάσιος, καὶ Βασίλειος, καὶ Γρηγόριος, ἐν οἷς

dam Arii opinionem impugnarent, simul etiam Sabellii doctrinam, ad quam refellendam, ut pote paucis comprehensam, non multis opus erat argumentis, everterunt. ^A

TITLE XI. On the Arians. From the fourth book of the Great Athanasius against them.

Blessed Alexander, bishop of the Church, cast out and expelled Arius, who said these things: “God was not always Father; the Son was not always; but since all things came into being from non-existence, the Son of God also came into existence from non-existence. And along with all existing creatures, he himself is also a creature and a work. And when all things were not yet, but came into being later, the Word of God himself was also once when he was not, and he was not before he was begotten. He has a beginning of existence. For he came into being at the time when God had decided to create him. For he is one of all the works, and he himself is one of them. And because by nature he is mutable, he remains good by his own free will; yet whenever he wills, he can turn, just as all things can. For this reason, God, foreknowing that he would be good, anticipated this and gave him this glory, which he would have obtained from virtue afterward.” ^B They say, therefore, that Christ is not true God, but is called God by participation, just like all the others. They add, moreover, that he is not in the Father by nature, nor is he the Word proper to His essence and His own proper wisdom, by which He fashioned this world; but that the Word proper to Him who is in the Father is one thing, and the other is the wisdom proper to the Father in whom He made this Word. For this Lord himself is called Word and Reason only in concept, because of those things which are endowed with reason; and in concept he is also called wisdom, because of those things that are adorned with wisdom. Indeed, they say that since all things are alien and foreign to the essence of the Father, so he too is alien and most remote from the essence of the Father, inasmuch as he is made and created, and is one work. To these they add that God did not create us for his sake, but him for our sake. For, they say, God was alone, and the Word was not with Him. Then, when He wished to create us, He then made him, and from the moment he was made, He named him Word, and Son, and Wisdom, so that He might create us through him. And just as all things came into existence by the will of God when they were not previously, so he too, when he did not exist before, came into being. For, they say, the Word is not the proper and natural Son of the Father, but he too came into existence by grace. For He who is God made the Son, who was not, by that will by which He also made and fashioned and willed all things to be. For they also say this, that Christ is not the natural and true power of God, but just as a caterpillar and a locust are called power, so he too is called the power of the Father. ^C In addition to these things, he used to say that the Father is invisible to the Son, and that the Son neither sees nor knows the Father perfectly and absolutely. For since he has a beginning of existence, he cannot have knowledge of Him who lacks a beginning. And if he should know and see, according to the proportion of his own measures. He sees, just as—

we also know and see according to our own power. ^A And he added this too, that he not only does not know the Father precisely, but does not even know his own essence. But all these things are contrary to the Scriptures. For John says, *In the beginning was the Word*; but these men say, He was not before he was begotten. And he himself wrote to all: *And we are in the true One, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.* But these men, as if fighting against this, say that Christ is not the true God, but that he is called God by communion, just as all others are called gods. And the Apostle blames the Greeks because they worship a creature, saying: *They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator.* But these men, saying that the Lord is a creature and worshipping him as a creature, how do they differ from the Greeks? For if they hold this opinion, is not the reading also against them, and is not the blessed Paul blaming them just as he blamed those others? And the Lord says: *I and the Father are one,* and: *He who has seen me has seen the Father.* And the Apostle, sent by him to proclaim the Gospel, writes: *Who being the brightness of his glory and the stamp of his substance.* ^B But these men dare to divide [him], and to call him alien to the essence and eternity of the Father, and to introduce [the idea] that he is mutable, the impious ones not seeing that while saying these things they no longer make him one with the Father, but with created things. For who does not see that brightness cannot be separated from light, the property of which is that it is always joined with it by a natural bond, and is not produced in it later? Furthermore, when the Father says: *This is my beloved Son,* and the Scriptures affirm that he is the Word of the Father, in whom even the heavens were established, and [that] simply all things were made through him, these inventors of new and fabricated doctrines introduce another Word and invent another wisdom of the Father, [saying] that he is called Word and wisdom only by conception on account of rational beings, not seeing how ^C absurd this is. For if he is called Word and wisdom by conception on account of us, they could not say what he himself might be. For if the Scriptures call him these things, but they do not wish the Lord to be these things, they clearly do not even wish him to be [at all], these impious ones who are enemies of the Scriptures. And the faithful are able to learn this from the voice of the Father himself, and from the angels who worship him, and from the holy men who wrote about him. But these men, since they do not have a pure mind, nor are they able to listen to divine and theological men, can learn at least from the demons like themselves, who cried out—not as if there were many [sons of God], but looking upon this one alone—and said: *You are the Holy One of God, and the Son of God.* For indeed, he who injected the heresy into their minds, when tempting him on the mountain, did not say, "If you also are the Son of God," as if there were others, but as if he alone were [the Son of God].

^A But to these remarkable men, the same thing happens that happens to the Greeks themselves. For just as the Greeks, having fallen away from the idea of one God, descended into polytheism, so too these men, not believing that the Word of the Father exists, have fallen into the notion of a plurality [of words], and they deny the Word who is truly God in reality, and have dared to think and say that he is a creature, not seeing with how much impiety such an opinion is filled. For if he is a creature, how can he be the creator of created things? Or how is he himself both Son and Wisdom and Word? For the Word is not created, but is begotten. And that which is created is not a Son, but a work. And if the works were made through him, and he himself is also a creature, then he too was made through someone. For it is necessary that created things come to be through someone, as indeed they came to be through the Word, because he himself was not a work, but the Word of the Father. And again, if there is another wisdom in the Father besides the Lord, then the wisdom came to be in wisdom. But if the Word of God is Wisdom, then the Word would have come to be in the Word. And if the Word of God is the Son, then the Son would have come to be in the Son. How, then, did the Lord say, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," ^B if there is another in the Father in whom the Lord himself has come to be? And why does John, omitting that, speak only of this, saying, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made"? If then all things which were made by the will of God were made through him, how is he himself one of the things that were made? And when the Apostle says, "For whom are all things and through whom are all things," these men assert not that we were made for him, but that he was made for us. For if the matter stood thus, it should have been said, "For whom was the Word made." But he did not say that, but "For whom are all things and through whom are all things," by which he declared these men to be heretics and sycophants. Furthermore, if they have presumed that there is some other Word in God, since they cannot bring forward clear proofs from the Scriptures, let them at least point out some work of this Word they have invented for themselves, if the works of the Father were made without this [true] Word, so that they might seem to have some cause for their folly. For the works of the true Word are clear to all, ^C from which he himself is known by a certain reason. For just as by looking at created things we understand God, the creator of them, so too when we observe that nothing in them is confused, but that all things are moved and remain by order and providence, we perceive the Word of God existing in all things and ruling and moderating all things. This, too, the divine Scriptures testify, saying that he is the Word of God, and that through him all things were made, and without him was made nothing. But of that word about which they speak, neither the testimony of Scripture nor any work is shown by them. For indeed the Father himself, saying, "This is my beloved Son," signifies that there is no other besides him. Therefore, in this respect, these remarkable men have at last been added to the Manichaeans. For even they call a good God [only] by name, but show no work of his, neither visible nor ^D capable of being shown. But the true and existing God, the maker...

of heaven and earth, and of all things which do not fall under sight, they deny, and thus they are found to be fabricators of myths. And these evil-minded men seem to me to suffer the same thing. For whereas they see the works of the true and only existing Word in the Father, they deny Him, and fashion for themselves another word, which they can prove neither by works nor by sayings. And after a little: Then, since the Apostle says, *Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God*, ^A these men count Him among the common and vulgar powers. And when the Lord says, *No one knows the Father except the Son* (Matth. xi, 27); and again, *Not that anyone has seen the Father except He who is from the Father* (John v, 15? – referring to John vi, 46), do they not truly fight against God, saying that the Father is neither fully seen nor fully known by the Son? For if the Lord says, *As the Father knows me, so I know the Father* (John x, 15), and the Father does not know the Son in part, are they not raving when they babble that the Son knows the Father only in part and not fully? Furthermore, if God has a beginning for his existence, and all things have a beginning for their coming to be, let them say what is the first of these. But the evildoers have nothing to say, nor can they show such a beginning for the Word. For He is the true and eternal offspring of the Father. *And in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God* (John i, 1). For as to their saying that the Son does not know His own essence, it is superfluous to answer, except to condemn their madness, if the Word does not know Himself, [the Word] who bestows the knowledge concerning the Father and Himself upon all, and is angered and indignant at those who do not know them. ^B

From the fifth book of the same against the Arians.

From God comes God, the Word; for *the Word was God* (John i, 1). And again, *whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen* (Rom. ix, 5). And since God comes from God, and the Word of God is Christ, [who is] wisdom and Son and power, for this reason one God is proclaimed in the divine Scriptures. For the Son of the one God, who is the Word, is referred back to Him whose Son He is; so that there are two, Father and Son, but one essence of divinity, indivisible and unseverable. It may be expressed also in this way: There is one principle of divinity, and not two principles. Whence it is properly a monarchy. And from this very principle the Word is Son by nature, not as another principle subsisting of itself, nor come to be from outside, ^C so that He might not be called anarchy or polyarchy due to the difference, but the proper Son, proper wisdom, and proper Word of the one principle, existing from it. For according to John, *in this principle was the Word, and the Word was with God* (John i, 1). For God is the principle; and because He is from Him, for this reason the Word was God. And just as there is no other

principle, so the Word from the one is not dissolved, nor is it merely a significant voice, but it is the Word by essence, and essential wisdom, which is the Son in truth. For if He were not of essence, God would be speaking into the air, and would be a body, having nothing more than1 ^A men. But since He is not a man, His Word would not be according to human infirmity. For just as there is one essence as the principle, so there is one Word of it, existing by essence, and wisdom. For just as God is from God, and wisdom from the wise, and word from the rational, and Son from the Father, so He is subsistent from subsistence, and essential from essence, and of one essence, and being from the Being. For if He were not essential wisdom and an essential Word, but simply wisdom, and Word, and Son in the Father, the Father Himself would be composite, made of wisdom and Word. And if this were the case, the aforementioned absurdities would follow. ^B He would also be His own Father and Son, Himself begetting Himself, and being begotten by Himself, as will be shown a little later; or "Word," and "wisdom," and "Son" are names only, and He does not subsist of whom these things are said, or rather, He who is these things. If, therefore, He does not subsist, these names are vain and superfluous, unless one should say that God is wisdom itself, and the Word itself. But in this manner, He would be His own Father and Son: Father, indeed, when He is wise; Son, however, when He is wisdom. But these things are not in God as some quality. Far be it. This is absurd. For in this way God would be found to be composite from essence and quality. For every quality is in an essence. And by this admission, the divine unity, being indivisible, would appear composite, being ^C cut into essence and accident.

*From the same book.*

Just as He is truly Father, so truly is He wisdom. For this reason, then, they are two, because the Father and the Son are not the same, as Sabellius imagines. But the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. Yet they are one, because the Son is by nature of the essence of the Father, existing as His own proper Word. This the Lord was teaching: "I," He says, "and the Father are one" (John x, 30). For neither has the Word been separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father without Word. Wherefore the Word is God, and the Father is not without the Word.

*From the same book.*

Christ is the Word of God. Did He then exist of Himself, and once having subsisted, was He attached to the Father? Or did God make Him and call Him His own Word? If the first be granted, that He existed of ^D Himself and is God, there would be two principles. Nor would He rightly be the own Son of the Father, inasmuch as He would not be of the Father Himself, but of Himself. If the second be granted, that He was made from without, He would be a creature. It remains, therefore, to say that He is from God Himself. If this be the case, one thing would be that which is from something, and another thing that from which it is. According to this

^A reasoning, there would be two, and if they were not two, but were called Father and Son in relation to one and the same, it would be the same cause and that which is caused, and that which generates and that which is generated, which is seen to be absurd in the case of Sabellius.

But if it be from Him, it is that which is, and not something else; it will be both that which generates and that which does not generate—that which generates, because it produces from itself; that which does not generate, because it is not something other than itself. If, however, these are called the same Father and Son according to a concept, but in this way it is unbecoming, there might be two, Father and Son. But if one is, and the Son is not from outside, but has been generated from God.

If, however, one flees from calling the Son a generation, but only says that the Word exists in God, let such a one, fleeing from what is called such by the Scripture, fall into ^B absurdity. He introduces a two-natured God, not giving that the Word is from the Monad, but having simply attached him to the Father, he introduces a duality of substance, nor does he grant that either is the father of the other. The same is true regarding power. He introduces a double essence, neither of which is the essence.

From the same book.

God is wise, and not wordless, or the contrary, unwise and wordless. If then the second, it is immediately absurd. But if the first, it must be asked, how is He wise and not wordless? Whether he has the Word and wisdom from outside, or from Himself? If from outside, it will be that He who gave them to Him, even before He received them, was ^C unwise and wordless; but if from Himself, it is clear that He is not from non-existents, nor was there ever a time when He was not. For He was always, since He is not a creature, but exists.

If they say that He is indeed wise, and not wordless, but has wisdom in Himself as His own, and a Word of His own, not Christ, but that in which He made Christ, it must be said that if Christ was made in that Word, it is clear that all things were too; and He Himself would be the one about whom John says, "All things were made through Him." And the Psalmist also, "In wisdom You have made all things" (Ps. CIII, 24).

Christ will be found lying if He says, "I am in the Father, and another is in the Father." And this, "The Word was made flesh," is not true of Him. For ^D if that through which all things were made, He Himself was made flesh, and Christ is the one who is in the Father, the Word through whom all things were made, then it is not that the Word was made flesh, but perhaps Christ was named Word. If this be the case, first, one would be another besides the name. Then, because all things were made through Him, but not through that in which Christ is.

If they say that perhaps quality is in the Father and the wisdom, that is, that He is self-wisdom, absurdities follow, such as stated above. For He will be composite, and Himself His own Son and Father becoming. Moreover, putting Him to shame, that the Word in God is not a creature, nor from non-existents, being once in God the Word, He Himself would be Christ, who says, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and for this reason, being the only-begotten. Since no one else was generated from Him. He is one Son, who is Word, wisdom, power. For He is not composite.

but God is the begetter. For just as He creates creatures by the Word, so by nature He has the Word as an offspring of His own essence, through whom He also creates, and fashions, and arranges all things. For by the Word and by wisdom all things were made, and by His ordering the universe subsists.

^B From the same sequence. From Deuteronomy: "But you who hold fast to the Lord your God are alive today all of you." From these words it is possible to perceive the distinction, and to know that the Son of God is not a creature. For the Son says, "I and the Father are one; I in the Father, and the Father in me." But created things, as they progress, hold fast to the Lord. Indeed, the Word, as being His own, is in the Father; but created things, as they exist externally, hold fast; that is, they are different by nature, but hold fast by their own volition. For the son who is son by nature is one with the begetter; but he who is adopted from without holds fast to the lineage. Because of this, it immediately adds: "What great nation is there, to whom God draws near?" And in another place: "I am a God drawing near." For He draws near to created beings, as they are foreign to Him; but to the Son, as being his own, He does not draw near, but is in Him; and the Son does not hold fast, but is together with the Father. Whence also again Moses says in the same Deuteronomy: "You shall hear his voice, and to him you shall hold fast." But that which is joined is joined from without.

^C But concerning the weak and human notion of the Arians, because they suspect that the Lord was in need, since He says, "It has been given to me," and "I have received," and if Paul says, "Therefore God has highly exalted him," and "He sat at the right hand," and such like, it must be answered that our Lord, being the Word and Son of God, wore a body, and also became Son of man, so that, having become a mediator between God and men, He might dispense to us the things of God, and to God the things of ours. Whenever, therefore, He is said to hunger, and to weep, and to toil, and "Eloi, Eloi," which are human affections and our miseries, He receives them from us and refers them to ^D the Father, interceding for us, so that in Him they might be wiped away. But whenever He says, "Power has been given to me," and "I have received," and "Therefore God has highly exalted him," these signify the gifts bestowed upon us by God through Him. For the Word was not in need, nor ever became so; nor, again, were men capable of procuring these things for themselves; but through the Word they are given to us. For this reason, as if bestowed upon Him, they are imparted to us; for He became man for this very reason, that as if given to Him, they might pass over to us. For a mere man would not have been deemed worthy of these; but the Word, on the other hand, alone, would not have been in need of these. The Word was therefore joined to us, and then He imparted authority to us, and

^A exalted us. For the Word being in man, He exalted man; and the Word being in man, man received. Since, therefore, the Word was in the flesh, man was exalted, and received authority; for this reason these things are referred to the Word, because they were given through Him; for these gifts were given on account of the Word who was in man. And just as the Word became flesh, so also man received what came through the Word. For all things whatsoever man has received, the Word is said to have received; so that it might be shown that man was not worthy to receive, in so far as it concerned his own nature, yet he received them through the Word who became flesh. Therefore, if it is said that something is given to the Lord, or anything of that sort, it must be understood ^B not that it was given to Him as one in need, but to man through the Word. For everyone who intercedes for another receives the grace himself, not because he is in need, but for the sake of him for whom he intercedes. For just as He takes upon Himself our infirmities, not being infirm, and hungers not being hungry, but sends up our own infirmities to be blotted out; so He Himself receives again the gifts from God in place of our infirmities, so that man, having been joined to Him, might be able to partake of them. The Lord says, therefore: "All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, I have given to them," and again: "I pray for them." For He was praying for us, having taken upon Himself what is ours, and was giving what He Himself received. Since, therefore, when the Word was joined to the man, the Father, looking ^C to the Word, granted to the man to be exalted, to have all authority, and such like things, for this reason all things are referred to the Word Himself, and are as if given to Him, which we receive through Him. For just as He became man for our sake, so we are exalted through Him. There is nothing absurd, therefore, if, just as He humbled Himself for our sake, so He is also said to be exalted for our sake. He granted, therefore, to Him—that is, to us through Him—and He exalted—that is, us in Him. And the Word Himself, when we are exalted, and receive, and are helped, as if He Himself were being exalted, and receiving, and being helped, gives thanks to the Father, referring our own things to Himself and saying: "All things whatsoever Thou hast given Me, I have given to them."

From the same book. He shows that the Arianomaniacs are also at variance with themselves; for falsehood does not even agree with itself. ^D The Arianomaniacs, followers of Eusebius, while attributing a beginning of existence to the Son, pretend that they do not wish Him to have a beginning of kingship. But that is ridiculous. For he who gives a beginning of existence to the Son, clearly gives Him a beginning of reigning also; so that while professing what they deny, they prove themselves to be blind. And again, those who say that He is only the name of the Son, and that the Son of God—that is, the Word of the Father—is empty of essence and substance, they pretend to be indignant against those who say, "There was when He was not."

^A And thus, those who deny this also confess it through their censure of others. Furthermore, the followers of Eusebius, while acknowledging the Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and wish the name "Word" to be granted to the Son by mere mental conception; while others, acknowledging the Word, deny that He is the Son, and wish the name "Son" to be granted to the Word by mere mental conception—both with a vain endeavor.

"I and the Father are one." ^B You say that either the two are one, or that the one is adorned with a double name, or that the one is divided into two. If the one is divided into two, then the thing divided must be a body, and neither is perfect, since each is a part and not the whole. But if the one is adorned with a double name, this is the doctrine of Sabellius, who teaches that the Father and the Son are the same, and destroys both—the Father when he is the Son, and the Son when he is the Father. But if the two are one, it is necessary that they be two, yet one according to the divinity, and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that the Word is from the Father Himself; so that they are two, because there is Father and Son, which is the Word; but they are one, because God is one. For if it were not so, He would surely have had to say, "I am the Father," or "I and the Father am." But now, by the word "I," He signifies the Son; and by adding "and the Father," He signifies the Begetter; ^C and finally, by the word "one," He designates one divinity and His own consubstantiality.

*From the same book. That the Father and the Son are not two Gods, even though they be two persons.*

But if anyone, hearing that the Father and the Son are two, should slander us as if we were introducing two gods (for some invent this against themselves, and immediately mock us with these words, "You assert two gods"), to such men we must respond thus: If he who acknowledges the Father and the Son says there are two gods, then he must necessarily reject the Son and stand with Sabellius, who believes there is one. For if he who says two is a pagan, then he who says one is a Sabellian. But the matter is not so; God forbid! ^D But just as he who acknowledges the Father and the Son to be two confesses that there is one God, so let him who believes in one God believe that the Father and the Son are two, but one in divinity, and insofar as the Word, born of the Father, can neither be separated nor divided nor disjoined from the Father Himself. Let us use a human example, if you please. Fire and the splendor arising from it are two insofar as they exist and are perceived, but they are one insofar as the splendor is from the fire and cannot be divided from it.

*Objections of the Arians. From the first book against them.*

"If," they say, "there never was a time when the Son was not, but He is eternal and coexists with the Father, you do not constitute Him as Son, but as a brother of the Father." Foolish and litigious men, if you confess that He exists eternally, but not as the Son...

your pretended piety toward Him was somewhat plausible. But if, while we explicitly call Him Son from the Father, we call Him eternal, how can the begotten be thought the brother of the One who begat? And if our faith is in the Father and in the Son, what brotherhood is there in these? Or how can the Word be called the brother of Him whose Word He is? For the Father and the Son were not begotten from some pre-existing principle so that they might be thought brothers, but the Father is the principle and begetter of the Son. And the Father is Father, and has not become Son. And the Son is Son, and not a brother. ^B

What the Arians object. From the same book.

"If the Son is the offspring of the Father," they say, "and is an image, and equal in all respects to the Father, He ought, just as He is begotten, also to beget, and He Himself also become the Father of a Son, and this one again, being begotten by Him, also beget, and so on to infinity. For thus it would be established that He who is begotten is like Him who begat." We respond: If the Son is in the way that human sons are, let Him become a begetter, so that the Son becomes another Father, and thus in turn it goes on from one to another, so that a succession of them might increase, and constitute a multitude of gods. But if God is not as man—for He is not—one must not calculate human things in regard to Him. For other animals and men are generated from a creative principle by succession from one another and beget, so that he who begets, since he was generated from a generated father, deservedly himself also becomes the father of another, having in himself that very thing from which he was also generated. ^C Whence it happens that among such as these, no one is strictly a father or strictly a son. For the same one becomes both son and father: father of the one he begat, but son of the one from whom he himself was generated. But in the Godhead it is not so. For God is not as men are. For the Father is not from another Father; whence He does not beget one who will himself generate, who would be a future Father. Nor is the Son from the seed of the Father, nor is He begotten from a begotten Father. Wherefore He is not begotten for the purpose of begetting. Hence in the Godhead alone the Father is properly Father, and the Son is properly Son. And in these alone is that firm and constant thing, that the Father is always Father and the Son is always Son. Therefore, he who says, "Why is the Son not of such a nature as to beget a son?" let him ask, "Why did the Father not have a Father?" But both questions are full of all impiety. For just as the Father is always Father, so that He ^D could never become Son, so the Son is always Son, so that He could never become Father. In which it is shown all the more that He is the form and image of the Father, while He remains that which He is and is never changed, since He has the same essence from the Father. Wherefore if the Father is changed, the image also should be changed; but if the Father is immutable, and remains just as He is, then necessarily the image also remains just as it is, and will not be changed.

From the same book. "If the Word is not from all eternity with the Father, not...

^A a Trinity, but a monad at first, and only later became a Trinity by addition, and increased and came into being as time progressed, according to them, then if the Son is not the proper offspring of the Father’s essence, but was made out of nothing, the Trinity is constituted out of nothing; and there was a time when there was no Trinity, but a monad, and at one time the Trinity was incomplete, and at another time complete. And henceforth, that which is generated is numbered together with the Creator, and that which is 'at one time not' is co-theologized and co-glorified with the 'Ever-Existent.' And more than that, the Trinity is found to be unlike itself, being constituted of strange and alien natures and essences. What else is this than to affirm that the Trinity is generated? What kind of divinity is this for a Trinity that is not like itself, but is completed in time by addition, and is now one way and now another? For it is likely that it will receive addition again and again, and this unto infinity, just as it secured its constitution once at the beginning by addition. It is not doubtful that it is also possible for it to be diminished; for whatever has been added, it is evident that it can also be taken away.

^B

The Objection of the Arians. From the same book.

"But behold," they say, "God was always a procreator, and is, nor did the faculty of procreating accrue to Him. Is it therefore the case, since He is an eternal procreator, that the things procreated are also eternal, so that in their case as well it would be a sin to say that they existed before they were made?" O foolish and demented Arians. What similarity does the Son have with created things, that you should say that the same things apply to Him as occupy these? Furthermore, since it has been demonstrated before how great the difference is between the Son and a work, why do they persist in their madness? For a work, as we have said, is outside the maker. But the Son is the proper offspring of the essence. Wherefore, it is not necessary for a work to be eternal. For the maker acts when he wills, but an offspring is not subject to will, but is a property of the essence. And indeed, he will be, and will be called, a maker, even if his works do not yet exist; but he will not be, nor will he be called, a Father, unless the Son exists. But if they proceed to inquire more curiously why, when God was always able to make the things that were made, He did not always make them, this question of theirs will be that of men who are dementing and audacious. For "who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?" Or how shall the molding say to Him who molded it, "Why did You make me thus?" But that we may bring forward some reason, however thin and shadowy it may be, and not remain altogether silent, let them take it as follows: Although God was always able to make them, the things themselves nevertheless could not be eternal. For they are out of nothing, and cannot exist before they come into being. But as for the things that are not before they come into being, how could they coexist with God, who always exists? Wherefore God, consulting for the sake of the things themselves, when He saw that they were able to continue once they had been made, at that time He made them all. And just as, being able from the beginning to send His own Word even in the days of Adam, or in the days of Noah, or in the days of Moses, He did not send Him, except in

the completion of the ages—for He knew this to be profitable for the whole creation—so also He made created things when He willed, and it was profitable for them. But the Son, not being a created work, but ^A a property of the Father's essence, always is. For as the Father is always, so must that which is the property of His essence—which is His Word and Wisdom—also always be. And as for created things, even if they do not yet exist, that does not diminish the Creator, for He has the power to create whenever He wills; but the offspring, if it were not always with the Father, would be a defect in the perfection of His essence. Whence, the created things were brought into being when He willed through the Word; but the Son is always the proper offspring of the Father's essence.

From the same book

^BThey say that it is written by the Apostle: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name." And by David: "Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." Then, as if saying something wise, they draw this conclusion: "If for this reason He was exalted and received grace, and was therefore anointed, He obtained a reward for His purpose (prohairesis). And since He acted by purpose, He is truly of a mutable nature." Not only to say these things, but even to write them, Eusebius and Arius have dared. And those who have received these things from them have dared to preach them in the midst of the marketplace. For they say that it is by virtue and improvement that He attained to being called Son and God, and that He is not true God. For that which is ^C born naturally from someone is truly an offspring, such as Isaac was to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob, and the radiance to the sun. But those who are called sons of God by virtue and by grace have grace in place of nature, which they have received; and there are others who misuse that name, of whom it was said: "I have begotten and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me." It is no wonder, since they were not sons by nature. Wherefore, since they had changed, they were deprived of the Spirit and were cast out; and again, if they repent, God will receive them and will pour in light and will call them sons, having initially bestowed that grace upon them. What, then, was He before this, if He was now exalted, and now began to be worshipped, and was called Son when He became man? For it appears that He brought no benefit to the flesh, but rather was Himself benefited by it. For if, before He became man, He was not Lord, God, the Word, ^D or anything else besides these, and later partook of them by virtue, or [if] the other alternative [is true]—which would recoil upon their own heads—it is necessary for them to say that He did not even exist before this, but was entirely a man by nature, and nothing more. But this is not the opinion of the Church; it is the opinion of the Samosatene and of the Jews of our time. For if He was not, or if He was indeed, but was improved later, how were all things made through Him? Or how did the Father rejoice in this imperfect Son, and even before this

^A rejoicing in the presence of the Father? How ^B, if after death He attained to being worshipped, did Abraham worship Him, and Moses at the bush, and as Daniel saw, ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands ministering to Him? Or how, if He now, according to them, obtained improvement, did the Son Himself, mentioning the glory that belongs to Him before the world and above the world, say, "Glorify Me, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was"? Therefore He was not improved by descending, but rather He Himself improved those things which had need of improvement, and He made us adopted sons to the Father, and deified men by becoming man. Therefore, He did not exist as man first and later become God, but being God, He later became man, that He might rather deify us. How then is He the "firstborn of all creation," if He had before Him those who were called sons and gods? Or how were those the first participants of the Word in Whom they participate? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And for our sake, this Word later became flesh. The expression therefore, "He highly exalted," does not mean that the essence of the Word was exalted. For He was always and is equal to God, but that exaltation pertains to the humanity. And for this reason these things were not said before the Word became flesh, so that it might be manifest that those words, "He humbled" and "he exalted," refer to the man; for the humility belongs to the same one to whom the exaltation belongs. And if it is written that He humbled Himself on account of the assumption of the flesh, it is manifest that it was also written that He exalted Him on account of the same. For man had need of exaltation on account of the humiliation of the flesh and of death. Since therefore the Word, being the image of the Father and immortal, took the form of a servant and for our sake endured death in His own flesh, that He might thus offer Himself for us to the Father through death, for this reason it is also said that He, as man, for our sake and on our behalf, was exalted, so that, just as we all died in Christ through His death, so also in the same Christ we might be exalted again, being raised from the dead and ascending into the heavens, where Christ entered for us as a forerunner. And if He is now written as having been exalted for our sake, even though He was, both before this and always, the Lord and Creator of the heavens, it is indeed for our sake that the exaltation is now written. And as He, while sanctifying all, says again to the Father that He sanctifies Himself for our sake, not so that the Word might become holy—for He is holy—but that He might sanctify us all in Himself; so also that which is now said, "He exalted Him," is not so that He Himself might be exalted—for He is the Most High—but that He might become righteousness for us, and we might be exalted in Him, and we might enter into the gates of the heavens, which He Himself opened for us again, while those who go before say, "Lift up your gates, O princes, and be lifted up, O eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in." For the gates were not closed to the Lord Himself and Creator of all things, but it is written thus for our sake, for whom the gates of heaven were closed. Therefore, on account of the flesh which He bore, it was said in the human manner: "Lift up the gates," and "He shall enter," as though a man were entering. But concerning Him again, as One who is God,

^A it is said: "And the King of glory shall enter in." And the Holy Spirit heralded this exaltation of ours in the eightieth Psalm, saying: "And in Thy righteousness they shall be exalted." But if the Son is the righteousness, then it is not, of course, He who is exalted as though He were in need, but we are the ones who are exalted by the righteousness, which is He Himself. For indeed, that which is written, "He bestowed upon Him," was not written on account of the Word; for He was already, even before He became man, worshipped—as we said above—by the angels and all creation according to His Fatherly property; but it was said regarding Him for our sake and on our behalf. For just as Christ died as a man and was supremely exalted, so too as a man He is said to receive that which He always had as God, so that such grace bestowed might reach us. For the Word was not diminished by assuming a body, that He should seek to receive grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, ^B and bestowed this in greater measure upon the human race. For just as the Word, being always worshipped and existing in the form of God, so too, remaining the same, having become man and having been called Jesus, He nonetheless has all creation under His feet, and in this name has those who bend the knee to Him and praise Him; for the fact that the Word became flesh and endured death in the flesh happened not to the dishonor of His divinity, but to the glory of God the Father. And it is the glory of the Father that the man who had perished should be found, and that he who was dead should be recalled to life and become a temple of God. And because the powers in heaven, who always worshipped Him, now also worship the Lord in the name of Jesus, this is our glory and exaltation; and the fact that the Son of God, having also become man, is worshipped and adored by those very celestial powers, ^C who will not deem us, who have become His partners and one body with Him and brought into their realms, as aliens or strangers.

From the same book.

^A being the Word, it was necessary that He, as one who could liberate those subject to the curse, should do so. But through whom, and from whom, ought the Spirit to be given, if not through the Son, whose Spirit it also is? And when could we have been able to receive the Spirit itself, if not when the Word became man? And just as the words of the Apostle show that we would not have been redeemed unless He who is in the form of God had taken the form of a servant; so too does David show that we would not otherwise have shared in the Spirit, nor would we be going to be holy, unless the Word Himself, the Giver of the Spirit, had said that He Himself was anointed with the Spirit for our sake. By His being anointed in the flesh, we truly received Him. For the flesh in Him having been the first to be sanctified, and He Himself being said to have received it for the sake of that flesh as a man, we, receiving from His fullness, obtain the consequent grace ^B of the Spirit.

From the same book.

That: Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity 1, does not, as you understand it, signify that the nature of the Word is mutable. For since the nature of created things is mutable, and therefore both the angels transgressed, as has been said, and men did not obey, and their action is not firm and stable, but it often happens that one who was just now good, a little later is inverted and turns into another; and he who was just a moment ago righteous is soon found to be unrighteous: for this reason there was need of one who was immutable, so that men might have the unchangeable justice of the Word as a form and model set before them for virtue. And not as one subject to laws, and having an inclination in either direction, so that He loves this and hates that, so as to embrace the one for fear of losing it, while being otherwise mutable; but as one who is God and the Word of the Father, He exists as a just judge and a lover of virtue, or rather its bestower. Therefore, since He is just by nature—and more—for this reason He is said to love justice and to hate iniquity. This is equivalent to saying that He loves and embraces the virtuous, and turns away from and hates the unjust. For indeed the divine Scriptures say the same thing about the Father: The Lord is just, and hath loved justice 1. And, Thou hast hated all that work iniquity 2. And, Jacob indeed I have loved, but Esau I have hated 3.

From the same book. A refutation of the Arians, and Valentinus, and Carpocrates.

^D Valentinus says that Christ and the angels are of the same kind, and asserts that He is one of them; Carpocrates affirms that the world was created by angels; and the Arians compare the Son with the angels. Judging the ministry of the Old and New Testaments, the Apostle speaking boldly writes to the Jews, saying, Being made so much better than the angels 4, etc. For this reason he did not wish to use an absolute comparison and say "greater" or "more honorable," lest anyone might think that this was said of Christ and the angels as if they were of the same kind; but he said "better," so that the difference of nature of

1 Ps. XLIV, 8. 2 Ps. V, 7. 3 Rom. IX, 13. 4 Hebr. I, 4.

the divine Scriptures, for David sings: "A better day is one in thy courts above a thousand"; and Solomon proclaims: "Receive instruction, and not silver, and knowledge above tested gold. For better is wisdom than precious stones, and nothing precious is worthy of it." For who does not see that wisdom and the stones which are from the earth are different and other in essence? And what kinship is there between the courts in heaven and the dwellings on earth? Or what similarity is there of things eternal and spiritual to things transitory and mortal? For this is also what Isaiah says: "Thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: Whoever keeps my Sabbaths, and holds fast to my covenant, I will give them in my house and in my walls a place of renown, a name better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name I will give them, and it shall not fail." ^B Thus, there is no kinship at all of the Son toward the angels. And since there is no kinship whatsoever, the word "better" was not spoken comparatively, but discriminatively, and because of the difference of his nature from theirs. And therefore the Apostle himself, interpreting the word "better," denotes nothing other than the difference which is between the Son and created things. For he speaks of him as Son, but of them as servants. He speaks of him as Son sitting at the right hand of the Father, but of them as servants standing by, being sent, and ministering. Therefore, if the children of those who were created are distinct from him who is the Son uniquely of the Father's essence, it is foolish for the Arians to draw their conclusion from that word, "having become better." For even if, being put to shame in these matters, they are constrained ^C to say again that those words were uttered by way of comparison, and that the things compared are of the same genus, and that the Son is of the same nature as the angels—so that they would have to blush first of all for emulating and approving the opinions of Valentinus, Carpocrates, and other heretics, of whom the one said that the angels are of the same genus as Christ, and Carpocrates affirms that the angels are the creators of the world—perhaps it is from them that these men have learned to compare the Word of God with the angels. But they will be refuted, even when they fancy such things, by the Psalmist, who says: "Who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?" and, "Who is like to thee among the gods, O Lord?" Let them hear, however, if they can by chance understand, how things that are conjoined by genus, and ^D not things which are different by genus, are accustomed to be compared with one another. For no one compares God with man, nor man with irrational animals, nor wood with stones, because of the dissimilarity of nature. But while God is a thing incomparable, man is compared with man, and wood with wood, and stone with stone, and one would not speak of "better" in these cases, but of "more" and "greater"; just as Joseph is "more" beautiful than his brothers, and Rachel than Leah. For one star is not "better" than another star, but rather it differs in brightness. But regarding those things which are different in genus, when one compares

^A them, then the "better" is said in relation to that which differs, just as has been said concerning wisdom and stones. If, therefore, the Apostle had said, "The Son leads the angels by so much, or is greater by so much," we would have a pretext, as if the Son were being compared with the angels. But as it is, by saying that He is better, and that He differs by as much as a son differs from servants, he shows that He is of a different nature from that of the angels. And by saying again that He is the one who founded all things, he shows Him to be different from all created things. For this reason, also, the Son did not say, "The Father is better than I," lest anyone might suppose Him to be alien to His nature, but said, "He is greater than I"—not in any magnitude, nor in time, but because of His birth from the Father Himself. ^B Indeed, the Apostle himself did not wish primarily to compare the essence of the Word to created things when he said, "Having become so much better than the angels"—for it is incomparable, or rather, it is something else entirely—but looking at the incarnation of the Word and the dispensation then fulfilled by Him, he wished to show that this was not similar to those that had preceded, so that by as much as He differs in nature from those sent by Him, by so much more should the grace brought by Him, and through Him, be seen to be better than the ministry of angels. For it was the task of servants only to demand the fruits, but it was the task of the Son and Master to forgive the debts and to transfer the vineyard. "By so much has Jesus become the surety of a better covenant." ^C And again: "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted upon better promises. For the law perfected nothing, but was an introduction of a better hope." And again he says: "It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Therefore, he attributes "the better" both now and throughout to the Lord, who is better and other than the created things themselves. For the sacrifice through Him is better, the hope in Him is better, and the promises brought by Him are better—not as great things compared to small, but as one thing compared to another of a different nature; ^D since He who dispensed these is also better than created things. And the phrase "He has become a surety" signifies the surety made by Him on our behalf. For as the Word, being what He is, became flesh—and we attribute the "becoming" to the flesh, for this [flesh] is created and generated—so here too the Apostle attributes the "has become" to the ministry of the Covenant. It is written, therefore: "Be to me a God for a protector, and for a house of refuge, to save me," and again: "And the Lord has become a refuge for the poor," and whatever similar things are found in the divine Scriptures. If they say that these are spoken of the Son—which is perhaps the truer interpretation—let them perceive that the holy men do not pray that He should be to them a helper and a house of refuge in so far as He is a creature. Therefore, let them understand the words "has become," "made," and "created" in such a way as to refer to His presence in the flesh.

them, how can there be a part of the unguent and the seal with these things which are anointed and sealed? Therefore it could not be that he is numbered among all things. For the seal would not be from among those things which are sealed, nor would the ointment be from among those things which are anointed; but this is the property of the Word that anoints and seals. For the ointment retains the fragrance and breath of the anointer, of which those who are anointed become partakers and say: "We are the fragrance of Christ." ^A The seal, however, preserves the image of the sealing Christ, the partakers of which, being sealed, are conformed to it, as the Apostle says: "My little children, of whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you." But being sealed in this way, we are deservedly made partakers of the divine nature, as Peter said, and thus the whole creation becomes a partaker of the Word in the Spirit. And through the Spirit we are all called partakers of God. "Do you not know," he says, "that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone violates the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which you are." But if the Holy Spirit were a created thing, there would certainly be no communion of God for us in him; but we would be joined to a created thing, and would be aliens to the divine nature, as participating in no part of it. Now, however, since we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of God, it is shown that the ointment and the seal which is in us does not belong to the nature of created things, but to that of the Son, who through the Spirit that is in him joins us to the Father. For this is what John, as was said above, taught us by writing: "In this we know that we abide in God, and he in us, because he gave us of his Spirit." ^B If, moreover, by the participation of the Spirit we are made partakers of the divine nature, no one surely, unless he were insane, would say that the Spirit belongs to the created nature, and not to that of God. For it is not for any other reason that those in whom he resides are made gods. But if he makes them gods, there is no doubt that his nature is God's. And a still clearer argument for the refutation of this heresy is sung in the one hundred and third Psalm, as we mentioned earlier: "You will take away their spirit, and they will fail, and return to their dust. You will send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you will renew the face of the earth." And Paul writes to Titus: "Through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out on us abundantly ^C through Jesus Christ." If, therefore, the Father creates and renews all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit, what similitude or kinship has the creator with the things created? Or how can it be that he in whom all things are created is himself a created thing? For with such impious teaching, it also follows that the blasphemy against the Son is such that those who say the Spirit is a created thing must also say that the Word, through whom all things are created, is a created thing. I shall add that the Spirit is both called and is the image of the Son. For, "Whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." ^D

^A Indeed, this is what the fathers use with their own authority, but this man uses it with the kindness of the Lord. For Sarah used to call Abraham her lord, although she was not a servant, but his wife. And the Apostle reconciled Onesimus the servant to Philemon his master as a brother. But Bathsheba, although she was his mother, called her son a servant; for thus she addressed David: "Solomon," she says, "your servant." Then also the prophet Nathan, having entered, said the same things as she did: "Since," he says, "Solomon, your servant." They were not afraid to call the Son a servant. Yet David also, hearing this, understood his own son: and those who were speaking did not ignore that he was his legitimate son, whereas they wished him, whom they called servant, to become the heir of the father; for he was the natural son of David. In the same way, when holy men speak of our Savior, whom they confess to be truly the Son and the Word by nature, if they say that he is faithful to the one who made him, or if he himself says concerning himself, "The Lord created me" [Prov. viii, 22], and, "I am your servant and the son of your handmaid" [Ps. cxv, 16], and other things of this kind, let no one on this account deny his property from the Father. For since those who hear Solomon called a servant, yet confess him to be his son, are they not worthy to perish a thousand times over if they do not entertain the same thought concerning the Lord? Especially if, when they hear "germ," and "Word," and "wisdom," they strive to distort these voices in such a way as to deny his nature and that the Son is truly begotten of the Father; but when they hear words that ^B correspond to a thing done, being said of him, they are immediately carried to the point of thinking that the Son was made by nature, and they deny the Word, even though they could refer all those words—since he was made man—to his humanity. For indeed Hezekiah, as it is written in Isaiah, praying, said: "For from this day I shall make sons," that is, I shall beget. And Eve, when she had brought forth Cain, said, "I have possessed a man through God" [Gen. iv, 1], when she ought to have said, "I have borne," since she had made mention of the birth. Yet on account of what she said, "I have possessed," no one would think that she had bought Cain from outside, and not brought him forth from herself. And the patriarch Jacob spoke thus to Joseph: "Now, therefore, the two sons of yours who were born to you in Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine: Ephraim and Manasseh." And concerning Job it is likewise written: "There were born to him seven sons and three daughters." Just as Moses also said in the Law: "If there should be to anyone sons," and, "If he should make a son." Behold how they call those who have been begotten "made," knowing well that they will be understood to be sons, and that it makes no difference whether you say "to make," or "to beget," or "to possess," because nature and truth draw the human mind to themselves. Wherefore, to those who ask whether the Lord was made and created, it must be answered in such a way that they themselves are first asked in turn whether they confess him to be the Son, and the Word, and the Wisdom. For this being conceded, every doubt and controversy is immediately removed. For a thing made can neither be the Son nor the Word, nor again can the Son be a thing made. ^D Notice, moreover, how great an error follows if we say that the Son is a creature. For there is not, nor could there be, a

POIEMA (CREATION)

^A Solomon says somewhere in Ecclesiastes: "God will bring every work (poima) into judgment." If therefore the Word is a creature, He too will be brought by you into judgment. And where then is the judgment, when the Judge Himself is being judged? But if they are disturbed because it is written, "being faithful to Him who made Him," and they think that this word, "faithful," is to be accepted concerning Him just as it is of all others—since one who is faithful, that is, who believes, receives a reward—let them see to it that by this name they do not also bring Moses into a crime, who says, "God is faithful," and the Apostle himself who writes, "Faithful is God, who will not permit you to be tempted beyond what you are able." ^B It must be understood, therefore, that the holy ones do not attribute things that are appropriate to men to God, but that this word, "faithful," is accepted in Scripture in a double sense. For he who believes is called faithful, and he who is worthy to be believed is also called faithful. The former is appropriate for men, the latter for God. Thus, Abraham is faithful because he believed God who spoke; God is faithful because, as David sang, "The Lord is faithful in all His words," and is trustworthy, and it is impossible for Him to lie. And so, that place where it is written "being faithful to Him who made Him" does not have the same character as in other cases, nor does it mean that He became pleasing by believing, but that, being the Son of the true God, He is also Himself faithful, and ought to be believed in whatever He says and does, remaining Himself immutable, and not being changed in the human economy and in the incarnate presence. ^C It was not, therefore, concerning things before the creation that the Apostle spoke, but when the Word became flesh. For when was He sent, or when did He put on our flesh? And when did He become the High Priest of our confession, if not when, having offered Himself for us, He raised His body from the dead? And now He brings those who approach Him by faith, and offers them to the Father, redeeming all, and propitiating God in behalf of all. Far be it, therefore, that we should believe the Apostle meant, by saying "faithful to Him who made Him," to signify the essence of the Word and His birth from the Father—for the Word creates, but is not Himself created—but rather that he intended to show His descent to men and His High Priesthood, which one may well perceive from the history according to the Law and Aaron. ^D

Disclosing the mystery of Christ from the history of Aaron, he refutes those who think incorrectly about Him. From the same book.

^A then the Word, as He had put on the robe reaching to the feet, so also He Himself took on human flesh from the earth, having the Virgin Mary instead of the unplowed earth as the mother of the body, so that, having what might be offered, He might Himself as High Priest offer it to the Father, and with His own blood might cleanse us all from sins, and raise us from the dead. And just as Aaron was not changed, although he was clothed in the priestly garment, but remaining the same he was only covered, and if someone seeing him offering said, Behold, today Aaron has become High Priest, he did not mean that he had then become a human being (for he was a human being before he became High Priest), but that for the ministry he had been made High Priest, having put on the garments made and prepared for the priesthood: in the same way, also, regarding the Lord it is possible to understand rightly that, having taken flesh, He did not become another, but being the same He was covered by it. And as for the term "has become," and "has been made," it is not right to understand that the Word, insofar as He is the Word, has been made, but that, being the Word and Creator, He was later made High Priest, having put on a body that is created and made, which also He can offer on our behalf. Therefore, He is also said to have been made. For when was He made, and when did He become an apostle, if not when He similarly partook of blood and flesh with us? And when did He become a merciful and faithful High Priest, if not when He was made like His brothers in all things? ^B And He was made like them, then, when He was made man. And He was made merciful when, by offering Himself for us, He had mercy on us; and faithful, not as participating in faith or believing in someone, as we do, but because He is worthy to be believed ^C regarding whatever He says and does, and because He offers the faithful sacrifice, the one that remains and does not fail. For the sacrifices offered according to the law did not have that faithfulness, but the sacrifice of the Savior, once offered, has brought all things to completion, and has become faithful, remaining forever. For He is faithful as one who does not change, but always remains the same and fulfills what He has promised, saying, "See me, that I am He, and I have not changed." So, the words "He was made" and "He was created" signify that He was made man. And indeed, Peter also, after saying, "He made Him Lord and Christ," immediately added, "this Jesus, whom you crucified." For he did not say, as we warned before, "He made Him Word," but "Lord." And not simply, but "to you, and in your midst He made Him," which is the same as to say, "He manifested Him." And starting his teaching, Peter signaled this with careful observation ^D when he spoke to them: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know." Therefore, what he said at the end as "He made," he said at the beginning as "He attested." For by the signs and the wondrous things that the Lord did, He was attested not simply as a man, but as God being in a body, and as Lord Him-

^A self being Christ. Similar to this is that which is told in the Gospels by John: "For this reason, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." For the Lord was not then feigning Himself to be God, nor is He at all a made God, but He was demonstrating it through His works, saying: "If you do not believe Me, believe My works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." It is clear, therefore, that now as Lord and Christ—that is, being declared King—He does not have a beginning of becoming Lord and King now, but He has a beginning of demonstrating His lordship and kingdom, and extending it also to those who have disobeyed. And He did not have a beginning of being then, but we had a beginning of Him being our Lord. And He did not make Him simply, but in order that He might rule over all, and sanctify all through the anointing. For it was not fitting that redemption be wrought by another, but by Him who is Lord by nature, lest we, who were created through the Son, call another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Hellenic folly, serving the creature instead of God who created all things.

Against the same sequence of Arians who argue that the Son played the role of an instrument, and was made for our sake.

"My Father has been working until now, and I have been working." The "until now" indicates His being, as the Word, in the Father from all eternity. For it is the property of the Word to work the works of the Father, and not to be outside Him. But if the things which the Father does, the Son also does, and the things which are created by the Son are the works of the Father, then the Son, as they would have it, is a work of the Father and created by the Father, or He ^C makes and creates Himself, since the things which the Father does are also works of the Son. This indeed would be absurd and impossible. Or, as the One who makes and creates the things that are the Father’s, He Himself is neither made nor created, lest He who is the efficient cause be found among the things made. How, then, does the Father create through Him, unless He is His Word and Wisdom? And how could He be Word and Wisdom, unless He is a proper offspring of His essence, and not even He Himself created from nothing? And further, since all things are from nothing and are created, and the Son, according to them, is one of those created things, and one of those that were not at one time, how does He alone reveal the Father, and no one else, unless He alone knows the Father? For if it is possible for Him, being a creature, to know the Father, let Him be known also by all according to the measure of each. For all things are creatures, just as He is. But if it is not possible for generated beings either to see or to know Him, since both vision and the knowledge ^D concerning Him surpass all; for indeed God Himself said: "No one shall see My face and live," and the Son has said: "No one knows the Father except the Son" — surely the Word would be something other than the things that have been made, since the Father is known and seen by Him alone. How then is the Word

His own, if it is a creature, and not the true Son, and from Him? The Father shows Him to be His Son and His only own [Son], and not a creature, saying: "Thou art my Son," and, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." ^B Wherefore also the angels ministered to Him, as being someone other than them, and He is worshipped by them, not because He is greater in glory, but because He is something other than all created things, and exists apart from them, being the only Son who is proper to the Father by essence. For if He were worshipped as one excelling in glory, then each of those who were inferior would have had to worship the one who excels him. But it is not so; for a creature does not worship a creature, but a servant worships his Master, and a creature worships God. Peter the apostle, therefore, forbids Cornelius who wishes to worship him, saying, "I myself also am a man." And the angel in the Apocalypse forbids John, who wished to worship him, saying, "See thou do it not; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God." Therefore, God alone is to be worshipped, a fact which even the angels themselves know. For although one may excel another in glory, yet all are created, and therefore they ought not to be worshipped, but to worship the Lord. The angel indeed restrained Manue, the father of Samson, who wished to offer sacrifice to the angel, saying, "Do not sacrifice to me, but to God." But the Lord is worshipped by the angels, for it is written: ^C "And let all the angels of God worship him," and by all nations, as Isaiah says: "And they shall worship thee, and in thee shall they make prayer: because in thee is God, and there is no God besides thee." He also receives the disciples who worship Him, and confirms to them who He is, saying, "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." And He permits Thomas to say, "My Lord and my God," and furthermore approves, not forbidding him. For He is, as the other prophets also say, and David himself chants, the Lord of hosts, and the Lord Sabaoth, and the true God, and Almighty. Why then, since all things were made by the command of God alone, was the Son not made by the same command, by which He was made; or why, they should tell us, were all things made through Him, who was also Himself made? For although everything they say is absurd and alien to reason, they nevertheless dare to speak thus: God, they say, when He wished to create the totality of all things, seeing that their nature was such that it could not receive procreation from Him who is immense, He alone made and created a single one, and called this Son and Word, so that, this being made as a medium, thus all things might thenceforth be able to be made through Him. Who would not recognize from these words their absolute impiety, which they, mixing with much ignorance, do not blush to have, like men drunkenly departing from the truth? For if they say that God, lest in the...

^A laborious task of creating other things He should grow exhausted, made only the Son, the entire creation will cry out against them, and will, in a certain sense, say with most manifest voice that they speak things unworthy of God, and Isaiah will restrain them with his own writings, saying: "God, the eternal, who made the ends of the earth, shall not hunger, nor grow weary, nor is there any searching of His understanding." But if they affirm that God, as if disdaining to create the totality of things, made only the Son, but entrusted the other things to the Son—this is surely unworthy of God; for there is no arrogance in God.

Yet the Lord will overturn their opinion, saying: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall upon the ground without your Father who is in heaven." And again: "Be not solicitous for your soul, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the soul more than meat, and the body more than the raiment? Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? And which of you, by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit? And for raiment why are you solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. And if the grass of the field, which is today, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, God doth so clothe, how much more you, O ye of little faith!"

If therefore it is not unworthy of God to provide for things so small—even the hair of the head, and sparrows, and the grass of the field—it is not unworthy of God to have created these things. ^B For of those whom He provides for, He is also the Creator through His own Word. Furthermore, a greater absurdity awaits those who say this. For they divide created things and the creation; and they attribute some as the work of the Father, and others as the works of the Son, whereas either all things ought to come from the Father along with the Son, or, if all things that are made come to be through the Son, one should not say that the Son is one of the things made.

Moreover, one could refute their folly in this way as well. If the Word also is of a created nature, how—since it is impossible for created nature to sustain the direct action of God—could He alone of all things be able to come into existence from the unbegotten and most pure substance of God, as you say? For it is necessary that if He is capable, everything is capable; or if every created thing is unable, neither can the Word be able, for He is, according to you, one of the created things. If, because created nature is unable to participate in the direct action of God, a mediator became necessary, then it is absolutely necessary, since the Word is a created thing and a creature, that there should be a need for a medium also for His creation, because He too is one of the created nature, which is unable to participate in the act of God but has need of a medium. And if one is found for Him as a medium, ^C there is need again of another mediator for that one, and so, one ascending and searching with one’s reason, will find that there is an infinite multitude of mediators required, and things needing a new medium will never find rest. But indeed, God led the people out of Egypt through Moses, and through the same, although he was a man, gave the Law. From which,

^A indeed, this happens: a great multitude of mediators flowing in; and thus it is impossible for the creation to stand firm, being always in need of a mediator, and the middle one not being able to exist without another mediator, because all are of created nature, which is incapable of partaking in the working of God alone, as you say. But lo, he says, even through Moses he led the people out of Egypt, and through him he gave the Law, even though he was a human being; so it is possible for such things to happen through one like us. Yet it were fitting for them to be covered in shame when they say this, so as not to bring upon themselves great disgrace. For Moses was not sent to create, nor to call things that are not into being, and to fashion people like himself, but only to minister words to the people and to King Pharaoh. But this has a great difference: that to minister belongs to the created and to servants, whereas to create and to form belongs to God alone, and to His own Word and His wisdom. For this reason, truly, in the act of creating, one would find no other than the Word of God alone; for all things were made in wisdom, and without the Word not even one thing was made. But for ministries, not one, but many from among all exist, whom the Lord may wish to send. For many are the angels, and many are the thrones, and powers, and lordships; thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand of ministers stand by, ready to be sent forth. And prophets are many, and twelve apostles, and Paul, and Moses himself indeed was not alone, but Aaron was with him, and after them other seventy-two disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit. And Joshua son of Nun succeeded Moses, and after him the judges, and after them not one, but very many kings. If, therefore, the Son were a creature and one of those who were made, there ought to be many such Sons, so that God might have many such ministers, just as there is a multitude in other orders. ^B But if this is not the case, but the created things are many, while the Word is one, who does not perceive even from these things that the Son is distinct from all things, and does not have equality with the created things, but has His unique relationship with the Father? Whence there are not many Words, but only one Word of the one Father, and one image of God. But lo, they say, the sun also is one, and the earth is one. Let the ignorant also say that water is one, and fire is one, so that they may hear that of things that have come to be, each is one according to its own substance, but toward the ministry and service entrusted to it, it is not sufficient and self-sufficient alone; rather, each of the things that have come to be, being like members of one another, ^C as a body, they constitute the world. If, therefore, they presume the Son to be also in this way, let them be rejected by all, as those who assert the Word to be a part of the universe, and a part of such a kind that without the other parts it cannot perform the ministry entrusted to it. But if this is clearly seen to be impious, let them acknowledge the Word not as created, but as the creator of all. But they say He is created, and was such that He learned to create from His maker as from a teacher, and thus to serve God the preceptor. For these things indeed even Asterius the sophist—as one who has learned to deny God—dared to commit to written records, not noticing how absurd these things are which follow from them. For if the method of creating can be taught, let them beware lest they make God Himself not by nature, but by teaching ^D

a creator, so that it is possible for Him also to fall away from it. Then, if the Wisdom of God acquired the power to create by learning, how is He still Wisdom, being in need of lessons? And what was He before learning? For He was not Wisdom, lacking instruction. An empty thing, therefore, He was, and not essential Wisdom, but from progress He obtained the name of wisdom. And He will be wisdom only as long as He retains what He has learned. For that which is not naturally inherent, but is birth by doctrine, can at some point be unlearned. But to say such things about the Word of God is to speak not as a Christian, but as a Gentile. For if the ability to create is acquired by someone through teaching, the foolish ones introduce envy and weakness into God; envy, because He did not teach many to create, so that just as there are many archangels and angels around Him, so also there might be many creators; and weakness, because He could not make things alone, but had need of a helper and an assistant, although it has already been shown that a created nature can be made by God alone, insofar as the Son, who, as they imagine, was created, could be created by God alone. But God certainly has no need of anything: far be it. For He Himself said: "I am full." Neither was the Word made a creator by learning: but seeing that He is the image and Wisdom of the Father, He performs the works of the Father. Nor did He create the Son for the sake of the work of created things; for behold, even with the Son existing, the Father is again working, as the Lord Himself says: "My Father works hitherto, and I work" (John v, 17). But if, according to you, the Son was made for this reason, that He might work the things after Him, and yet the Father is seen working even after the Son, the procreation of such a Son is, according to you, superfluous. ^B Furthermore, why does He seek the labor of some intermediary when He desires to create anything at all, as if His own will were not sufficient to establish those things which He deems fitting? And yet the Scriptures say: "He hath done all things whatsoever He has willed" (Ps. CXIII, 11), and, "Who hath resisted His will?" (Rom. IX, 19). But if His will alone is sufficient for the creation of all things, then, according to your opinion, the service of an intermediary is again superfluous. And the example regarding Moses, and the sun, and the moon, which you adduce, has been shown to be fallacious. This, too, will again expose you. For if God, willing to create the created nature, and deliberating about this, conceives and creates the Son, according to you, in order that through Him He might create us—consider what a great impiety you have dared to utter. ^C First, that it appears the Son Himself was brought into existence for our sake, and not we for His. For we were not created for His sake, but He was made for our sake, so that He might owe us gratitude rather than we to Him, just as the woman does to the man. "For," he says, "man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. XI, 9). Wherefore, just as the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man, so we were made the image of God and His glory, but the Son [would be] our image, and for our glory ^D

^A of the Spirit alone in baptism. *For all,* he says, *in one body have we been baptized into one Spirit.* And the following agrees with this: *But you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit*; and, *He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.* Yet no one would call a baptism perfect in which only the name of the Spirit is invoked. For it is necessary that the tradition given in the life-giving grace should always remain inviolable. For He who redeemed our life from corruption gave us the power of renovation, which has an ineffable cause hidden in mystery, but which brings great salvation to souls; so that to add anything or take anything away is clearly to fall away from eternal life. If, therefore, in baptism the separation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is dangerous to him who baptizes, and useless to him who receives it, how could it be safe for us to tear the Spirit away from the Father and the Son? Faith and baptism are two methods of salvation, kindred and inseparable. For faith is perfected through baptism, and baptism is grounded through faith, and each is fulfilled by the same names. For just as we believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so also we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And confession indeed leads the way, bringing us toward salvation; but baptism follows, sealing our assent.

The assignment of the reason why angels were associated with the Father and the Son by Paul. Chap. XIII.

^B But, they say, there are other things that are enumerated together with the Father and the Son, yet are not for that reason glorified together with them at all. As the Apostle associated the angels in his adjuration to Timothy, saying: *I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, and of his elect angels*: whom, however, we do not in the least separate from the rest of the creation, nor do we endure to enumerate them with the Father and the Son. But I, even if this argument is worthy of no ^C response, as it carries an obvious absurdity, nevertheless say this: that one might perhaps set forth a fellow slave as a witness before a gentle and mild judge, and especially one who in his clemency toward those who are judged demonstrates the irrefutable justice of his judgments. But to be made free from a slave, and to be called a Son of God, and to be quickened from death, this cannot be given by anyone else than by Him who possesses this kinship by nature and is exempt from the status of a slave. For how will one who is an alien make another intimate with God? Or how ^D shall he set free, he who is himself subject to the yoke of slavery? So it is not for similar reasons that the mention of the Spirit and of the angels is made, but the Spirit is mentioned as the Lord of life, while the angels as helpers of their fellow slaves, and they are taken as faithful witnesses of the truth. For it is the custom of the saints to give the commandments of God in the presence of witnesses; as he himself says to Timothy: *What you received from me in the presence of...*

^A many witnesses, the same you entrust to faithful men. For it is the manner of the saints to act thus, so that if perchance some should arise who are perverse, and who endeavor to alter the things that have been spoken, they may have witnesses who will convict their deception. But [let us return to the subject]. For humans are born from humans, and after a time they become sons. And the father is, perhaps, thirty years old, while the son has a beginning when he is born, and in short, every son of man did not exist before he was born. And again they whisper, "How can the Son be the Word? Or how can the Word be the image of God?" For the word of humans, consisting of syllables, only signifies the intention of the speaker, and it immediately ceases and vanishes. ^B Those men, then, as if they had forgotten the refutations previously brought against them, again reason in such a way. But the word of truth refutes them thus: If they are reasoning about some human, then let them also reason about his word and his son in a human manner. But if they are reasoning about God who created humans, then let them no longer think in a human way, but think otherwise, above the nature of humans. For whatever the begetter is, his offspring must necessarily be the same. And whatever the father of the word is, his word must also necessarily be the same. Now, since man is born in time, he also begets his offspring in time. And because man was made from non-existence, for this reason his word also comes to an end and does not remain. But God, as the Scripture testifies, is not as humans are, but is He who is, and who always is. For this reason His Word also is, and is eternally with the Father, as the radiance of light. And the word of humans consists of syllables, and it neither lives, nor acts, but is only ^C significant of the mind of the speaker, and it only went forth and passed by, appearing no more, since it did not exist at all before it was spoken. Therefore, the word of humans neither lives, nor acts, nor is it at all a human being. This happens, as I said before, because the man who produces this word has his nature from non-existence. But the Word of God is not, as one might say, "prophoric" [uttered], nor is it the sound of words, nor is the Son what God commands to be; but as light and radiance, so is He a perfect offspring from the perfect. Therefore, He is also the image of God, and God. "And the Word was God," he says. And while the words of humans are nothing in terms of action—wherefore man works not by words, but by his hands, because they have existence, whereas his word does not subsist—the Word of God, as the Apostle said, is "living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and pierces ^D even unto the division of soul and spirit." For it was fitting that, God being one, His image also should be one, and His Word one, and His wisdom one. Therefore, I marvel how, God being one, they have invented for themselves, according to their own notions, many images, and wisdoms, and words. And they say that there is one Word of the Father proper to Him and by nature, in which He even made the Son; but that the Son is truly called "Word" only by notion, just as He is also called "vine," and "way," and "door," and "tree of life." And they say that He is called "Wisdom" only in name, but that there is another, their own and true [next page continues]

Wisdom of the Father, which coexists with Him unbegotten, ^A in which He also created the Son, whom He named Wisdom through participation in that Wisdom. But if they only utter this much, how are they not worthy of every hatred? For if, as they themselves think, He is not the Son because of the generation from the Father and the eternity of His essence, but is called Word because of rational beings, and Wisdom because of those endowed with wisdom, and Power because of those strengthened, then surely He was also called Son because of those who are adopted as sons by Him, and perhaps because of created things He possesses even existence. What, therefore, remains of Him? For He would be none of these things if these are merely His names, and if He has only a semblance of existence for our sake, and is adorned by these names. But this is a diabolical opinion, or perhaps even worse than that, since they wish themselves to truly exist, but imagine the Word of God to be such by name only.

And is their talk not monstrous, to say that wisdom coexists with the Father, yet to deny that this is Christ, but rather that there are many created powers, and that Wisdom exists, and that the Lord is one of them—the very Lord whom they compare even to the caterpillar and the locust? And how are they not crafty, ^B subtle, and malicious, who, hearing us say that the Word coexists with the Father, slander us and say, "Do you therefore posit two unbegotten beings?" Yet they themselves, saying that His wisdom is not begotten, do not notice that the same dart of reproach can be turned back against them. For is this opinion of theirs not clearly foolish, when they say that the unbegotten wisdom existing together with God is God? For something is said to exist "together" not because it exists together with itself, but because it exists together with something else. Just as the Evangelists say concerning the Lord, "He was together with His disciples," not because He was with Himself, but because He was with them. Unless, indeed, they affirm that God is composite and possesses wisdom—which is not itself begotten—as something connected to and completing His essence, which wisdom they characterize as the creator of the world so that they might deny the Son the act of creation. And while they misuse the name of the Word and of Wisdom, ^C they fabricate other things for themselves, denying the true Word of God and the true and only Wisdom of God, and thus the wretches imitate the Manichaeans.

From the same book.

^D Just as when we hear John saying, "The Word became flesh," we do not understand the Word Himself to be entirely flesh, but that He put on flesh and became man; and when we hear, "Christ became a curse for us," and "He who knew no sin made Him to be sin for us," we do not understand Him to have become entirely curse and sin, but that He took upon Himself the curse against us, as the Apostle said, having redeemed us from the curse, and that He bore our sins, as Isaiah said, and as Peter said, "He bore them in His body upon the tree": so if we hear in the

Proverbs "He created," we ought not to understand the whole nature of the Word as a creature, but that he put on a body created for us, and for our sake God created Him to be for us, having prepared for Him the created body, as it is written, so that in it we might be able to be renewed and become sons. Why then did it deceive you, O senseless ones, to call the Creator a creature? Or from where did you purchase for yourselves this new opinion, and in it you glory? For the Proverbs say "He created," but they do not call the Son a creature, but a begotten one. For when they say "He created," they do not speak of His essence, but they signify that He became the beginning of many ways. ^B

*From the same book.*

The Word of God is not a creature, but He is the Creator; yet He says in the Proverbs, "He created me," when He put on the created flesh. And this again can be understood from the text itself. For being the Son, and having God as Father—for He is His own proper offspring—nevertheless He calls the Father Lord, not because He was a servant, but because He took up the form of a servant. For it was fitting that He, as being the Word from the Father, should call God Father, but, coming to fulfill the work of our salvation and taking the form of a servant, He would call the Father Lord. And the Lord Himself taught this difference with a clear distinction, saying in the Gospels, "I confess to Thee, O Father," and then adding, "Lord of heaven and earth." But just as we, in calling the Lord Father/Lord, do not deny our natural servitude—for we are His works, and He made us, and not we ourselves—so when the Son, taking the form of a servant, says, "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways," let none dare to deny the eternity of His divinity, nor that "in the beginning was the Word," and "all things were made through Him," and "in Him all things have been created." ^C

But the statement in the Proverbs, as I said before, signifies not the essence, but the humanity of the Word. For if it says "He is created for works," it is clear that it does not wish to signify His own essence, but the economy that took place for His works, which is secondary to His being. For the things that are created and made were brought into existence primarily for the sake of being and existing, and they have the carrying out of what the Word commands them as a second thing; as it is possible to see in all cases. For Adam was created, not that he should work, but that he might first exist as a man. After this, he received the commandment to construct the ark. And one would find these things in the case of everyone. For even the great Moses was first born a man, and second, he was entrusted with the leadership of the people. Therefore, it is possible to understand this here as well. And the Spirit, signifying this beforehand in the Psalms, said: "And you have set him over the works of your hands," which the Lord also signifies about Himself when He says, "I was set up as King ^D by Him over Zion, His holy mountain."

^A Just as when He shone forth bodily upon Zion, He did not then have a beginning—but being the Word of God and an eternal King, He deigned to shine His kingdom upon Zion in human fashion so that, having redeemed them and us from the sin that rules over them, He might place them under His fatherly kingdom—so when He is set over the works, it is not over those things that do not yet exist, but over those that already exist and are in need of correction, that He is set. For it was fitting that one who exists as something other than the works themselves, and is indeed their Creator and Progenitor, should accept the renewal of these very things into Himself, so that as He is fashioned for us, He might gather all things into Himself. For when He said, "He created," He immediately added the cause, mentioning the works, so that by saying He was created for the sake of the works, He might show that He became man for the renewal of these things.

And this is the custom of Divine Scripture. ^B For whenever it signifies the birth of the Word according to the flesh, it also sets forth the cause for which He became man; but when He Himself, or His ministers, speak about His divinity, everything is said in simple language, in a free and unrestrained manner, and without supplying any cause. For He is the radiance of the Father, and just as the Father does not exist for any cause, so no cause is to be sought for this radiance. For "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," is written, and it contains no "wherefore." But when "the Word became flesh," then it also sets forth the cause for which He became man, saying, "And He dwelt among us." Again, the Apostle, saying, "Who, though He was in the form of God," ^C does not add the cause, except when He took the form of a servant. For then he goes on to say, "He humbled Himself unto death, even death on a cross." For it is for this reason that He both became flesh and took the form of a servant.

And the Lord Himself covers many things with the veils of parables, but when He speaks about Himself, He says openly: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"; and, "I and the Father are one"; and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"; and, "I am the light of the world"; and, "I am the truth," not adding a cause to each utterance, nor a "wherefore," lest He should appear to be secondary to those for whose sake He also became man. For it is necessary that the cause of this should precede it, without which He Himself would not have come to be. ^D Paul, indeed, set apart for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised beforehand through the prophets, had the Gospel before him, of which Gospel he became a minister. And John, chosen to go before the Lord, had the Lord before him. But the Lord, who has no cause before Him for His being the Word, except that He is the offspring of the Father and the only-begotten Wisdom, when He becomes man, then He also sets forth the cause for which He is about to bear flesh. For the need of men precedes His becoming man, without which He would not have put on flesh. And what the need was for which He became man, He Himself declares: "I have descended," He says, "from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me, that of all that the Father has given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in

^A the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in Him, may have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day." And again: "I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness." And again in the Gospel according to John He says: "For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth." And John wrote: "For this the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." The Savior, therefore, came to bear witness, and to take upon Himself death for our sake, and to raise up men, and to destroy the works of the devil. And this is the cause of His advent in the flesh. For otherwise the resurrection would not have happened, had not death occurred. But how could death have occurred, if He had not possessed a body capable of dying? Having learned this from Him, the Apostle also said: "Since therefore the children have shared in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise participated in the same, ^B so that through death He might destroy him who has the dominion of death, that is, the devil." But if He is created not for His own sake, but for our sake, He Himself is not a created being, but says these things having donned our created flesh. For just as by accepting our infirmities He is said to be infirm Himself—though He is not in fact infirm and weak, since He is the power of God—and by becoming sin and a curse for our sake—though He did not sin Himself, but rather He bore our sins and curses—so also, while creating us, He says: "The Lord created me," even though He Himself is not a creature.

Ex eodem libro. If the Word were by nature and essence a created thing, and there were no difference between a created thing and the Son, He would not have added that: "He begets me," but it would have sufficed to say: "He created me," since this word would then contain the meaning of "He has begotten." But now that He has said: "He created me as the beginning of His ways for His works," He adds not simply "He begets me," but joined with the "and" ^C as a conjunction, as if safeguarding through this the word "created," saying: "And before all the hills He begets me." For the "He begets me," being brought in in conjunction with the "He created," makes the sense one; and it shows that He said "He created" for a specific reason, but "He begets me" is prior to "He created." For just as if He had said conversely, "The Lord begets me," and had added, "And before all the hills He created me," the "He created" would certainly have preceded the "He has begotten," so by first saying "He created," then adding, "And before all the hills He begets me," He demonstrates of necessity that the "He has begotten" precedes the "He created." For indeed, by saying, "Before all things He begets me," He signifies that He is something other ^D than all things. Yet with the "He created," there is laid down "the beginning of the ways," but with the "He begets me," it is not laid down "the beginning," but rather "before all things He begets me." And the one before...

all things exists, not as the beginning of all things, but is something other than all things. If He is other than all of them, in which the beginning of all things is signified, it is manifest that He is other than the created things. For just as men, by receiving the Spirit of God, become children of God through Him, so the Word of God, when He Himself also put on the flesh of men, is then said both to be created and to be made. But is He not, even in this respect, called ^A the first-born? And He is ours, because when all men were perishing according to the transgression of Adam, His flesh—being made the body of the Word Himself—was the first of all to be saved and liberated. We, in turn, as sharers of His body, are saved in accordance with Him. For with that body our Lord, our leader, entered into the kingdom of heaven and makes His way to His own Father, saying, "I am the way, and the door, and through Me all must enter."

On the same sentiment.

Since that first way through Adam had perished, and instead of paradise we had turned aside ^B towards death, and had heard, "You are earth, and to earth you shall return"; for this reason the most merciful Word of God, by the will of the Father, put on the created flesh, in order that the flesh which such a man had brought to death by the transgression, He Himself might vivify by the blood of His own body, and might inaugurate for us a new and living way, as the Apostle has said, through the veil, that is, through His flesh. This He signifies also in another place, saying, "So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed ^C away, behold, all things have become new." If, then, a new creation has come to be, it was necessary that there should be some first one of this creation. Now, a mere man and purely of the earth, such as we have become after the transgression, could not be that one. For in the first creation men became faithless, and through them the former way perished. There was need, therefore, of another who would both renew the first and preserve the new that had been made. And so, not some other, but the Lord is created, by a wonderful kindness, as the beginning of the way of the new creation; whence He rightfully and deservedly says: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works," so that man might ^D no longer live according to that former way, but as having, when the beginning of the new creation was already existent, Christ as the beginning of His ways, we might henceforth follow Him as He says: "I am the way." This same thing the blessed Apostle also teaches, saying in the Epistle to the Colossians: "He is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that He Himself might hold the primacy in all things." For since the Savior was in this way created according to the flesh, and had become the beginning of those who are recreated, and has our first-fruits—namely, the human flesh which He assumed—consequently, after Him, the future people is created, of whom David says: "Let these things be written for another generation, and the people who shall be created shall praise the Lord"; and again in the twenty-first psalm [that is, the twenty-second],

^A *They shall tell of the Lord a coming generation, and they shall tell His righteousness to a people yet to be born, whom the Lord has made.* For we shall no longer hear, *In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die*; but rather, *Where I am, there you also shall be.* So that we may say, *For we are His workmanship, created in Him for good works.*

Again, since the work of God—that is to say, man—having been created perfect, became deficient through transgression and dead in sin; and since it was unbecoming for the work of God to remain imperfect, which is why all the saints prayed regarding this in the 137th Psalm, saying, *O Lord, do not despise the works of Thy hands*; for this reason, the perfect Word of God put on an imperfect body, and is said to be created into the works, in order that, having paid the debt on our behalf, He might Himself complete and perfect what was lacking in man. For ^B immortality and the way to paradise were lacking to him. And this is that which is said by the Savior: *I glorified Thee on the earth; I have finished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.* And again: *The works which the Father has given Me to finish, those very works that I do, testify about Me.* The works, moreover, which He declares the Father has given to Him to finish are these very things for which He is created, as He says in the Proverbs: *The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works.* For it is the same thing as if He said: "The Father gave me the works to finish." For then, because the works had become imperfect and maimed through transgression, He is said to be created according to the body, so that, having finished them and made them whole, He might present the Church to the Father not having *spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it might be holy and without blemish.*

In Him, therefore, the human race was perfected and restored to the state in which it had been at the beginning, or rather, restored and repaired with greater grace. Since, being raised from the dead, we no longer fear death, but in Christ we are destined to reign forever in the heavens. This came to pass because the Word of God Himself, being proper to and from the Father, put on flesh and became man. For if, being a creature, He had become man, the human race would have remained nonetheless exactly as it was, not having been joined to God. For how could a creature be joined to the Creator through another creature? Or what help could be given to like by like, when they themselves are in need of the same help? And how, if the Word were a created thing, would He be able to annul the sentence of God and forgive sins, when it has been written by the prophets that this is God's own prerogative? ^C For *who is a God like You, who takes away sins and passes over iniquities?* For whereas God said, *You are earth, and to earth you shall return*, and that is the reason why men became mortal, how could things that are created themselves reverse this sentence? But the Lord Himself annulled it, as He Himself said: *If the Son sets you free*, and truly the Son showed that He has set free, because He is not a creature, nor of those who are...

^A created, but is His own, and the image of the Father’s essence, who also in the beginning had pronounced that sentence and who alone forgives sins. For since it was said in the Word: *You are earth, and to earth you shall return*, it follows that through this same Word and in Him, the liberation and the release from the condemnation have come to pass.

^B But they say that even if the Savior were a creature, God could have merely spoken and annulled the curse. But the same thing could be said as a response to them by another: Even without His advent at all, God could have merely spoken and annulled the curse. But one must consider what is useful to men, and not what God can do in all things; for even before the ark of Noah, God could have destroyed the men who had sinned at that time, yet He did not do so until after the ark. He could also, without Moses, have merely spoken and led the people out of Egypt, but it was fitting that this be done through Moses. God could also have preserved the people without judges, but it was to the advantage of the peoples that a judge be raised up for them in due time. The Savior Himself could also have come from the beginning; or, having come, He could have not been handed over to Pilate; yet He came at the *end of the ages*, and when sought, He said: *I am*. For what He does is what is expedient for men, and it could not have come to pass in any other way; and whatever is expedient and fitting, of that He also makes provision. He came, therefore, not to be served, but to serve, and to restore our salvation. Certainly, even though He could have proclaimed the law from heaven, He saw, however, that it was advantageous for men that it be brought forth from Mount Sinai: which indeed He did, so that Moses might be able to ascend, and they, hearing the words from closer by, might be able the more readily to believe.

^C Furthermore, it is permitted to see from this how reasonably this was done. If God had spoken by His power and the curse had been annulled, the power of the One commanding would have indeed been shown, but the man would have become such as Adam was before the transgression, receiving grace from without and not having it joined to his body; for being of such a nature, he had been placed in paradise; but perhaps he had even become worse, in that he had learned how to sin. If, then, when he was such, it had also happened that he was deceived by the serpent, the need would have been for God to command again and annul the curse, and in that way the necessity would have met no end, and men would have remained no less guilty and would have served sin. Thus, always sinning, they would have always needed the One who forgives, and consequently would never have been set free, since they are from themselves entirely carnal, and on account of the infirmity of the flesh they would always succumb to the law.

^D Furthermore, if the Son were a created thing, man would remain nonetheless mortal, as he would in no way be joined to God. For no created thing can join other created things to God, since it itself seeks someone to join it. Nor could any part of created nature bring salvation to it, since it itself stands in need of salvation. In order, therefore, that this might not happen...

^A God sent His own Son, who, having assumed created flesh, became the son of man, so that, since all are liable to death, He, being other than all others, might offer His own body to death for the sake of all; and thus, as all have died through Him, the sentence pronounced against us might be fulfilled (for all have indeed died in Christ), and all may henceforth be made free from sin and the curse that followed because of it through Him, and may truly remain, having risen from the dead and having put on immortality and incorruption. For since the Word put on flesh, as has been shown many times, every sting of the serpent was utterly extinguished from it; if any evil sprang forth from the movements of the flesh, it was cut off, and the death that follows sin was destroyed along with it, as the Lord Himself says, "The prince of this world is coming, and he finds nothing in me," and, "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested," as John wrote, "that He might destroy the works of the devil." When these had been dissolved from the flesh, we were all set free according to the kinship of the flesh, and henceforth we too were joined to the Word. And having been joined to God, we shall no longer remain on earth ^B but, as He Himself said, where He is, there we also shall be.

On the same passage.

If, therefore, the earth has been founded by Wisdom, how is He who founds it also founded? But this, too, is spoken in the manner of a proverb, and the meaning of it must be sought so that we may know that the Father creates and founds the earth by Wisdom, so that it may remain firm and stable; but Wisdom Himself was founded for our sake, so that He might become the beginning and foundation of our new creation and renewal. He did not, therefore, say even in these texts, "He created me as Word or Son before the age," lest it be believed that He had a beginning of being made; for this is what must be sought before all else: if He is the Son, and the Scriptures must be primarily searched ^C regarding this. For when the apostles themselves were questioned about this, Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is also what the father of the Arian heresy asked first of all: "If you are the Son of God." For he knew that this is the truth and the chief foundation of our faith; and that if He is indeed the Son, the diabolical tyranny will have an end, but if He is a creature, He is also one of those who are from Adam, who was deceived by him, and there would be no reason for concern. For this reason the Jews of that time were also indignant, because the Lord called God His own proper Father, claiming to be the Son of God. For if He had said that He was one of the created things, or "I am a product," they would not have been shocked to hear it, nor would they have considered ^D such words blasphemy, knowing that angels had indeed appeared to the fathers; but because He called Himself the Son, they perceived that this was not a mark of a created thing, but of divinity and paternal nature.

^A It would therefore have been fitting for the Arians, even if they were imitating their father the devil, to be inquisitive; and if He had said, "He founded me as Word or Son," to think as they now think; but since He did not say it in this way, they should not imagine for themselves things that are not. For He did not say, "Before the ages He founded me as Word or Son," but simply, "He founded me," in order to show again, as I have said, that it is not for His own sake, but for the sake of those who are being built up upon Him, that He says this in the manner of a proverb. Knowing this, the Apostle also writes: "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But let each one take heed how he builds upon it." ^B Now, it is necessary that the foundation be such as the things built upon it are, so that they may be able to fit together. As the Word, therefore, insofar as He is the Word, He does not have those who are like Himself among those who are built up with Him, for He is the Only-Begotten; but having become man, He has those who are like Him, whose similar flesh He also put on. Therefore, He is founded according to the human nature, so that we too, as precious stones, may be able to be built up upon Him and become a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. And just as He is the foundation and we are the stones built upon Him, so He is again the vine, and we are like branches joined to Him, not indeed according to the nature of His divinity—for that is impossible—but again according to the human nature; ^C for it is necessary for the branches to be similar to the vine, since we also happen to be similar to Him according to the flesh. But since the heretics have a mind for nothing but what is human, it is not unreasonable to refute them by the same human examples drawn from the same place. He did not, therefore, say "He made me a foundation," lest the heretics, taking this as a sign of a created thing and that He had a beginning of existence, should impudently seize an opportunity for establishing their impiety, but He said: "He founded me." Now, that which is founded is founded by stones having been cast upon it, which indeed is not accomplished in just any way, but when a stone is transferred from a mountain and is placed in the depths of the earth. For as long as the stone is on the mountain, it is not yet laid as a foundation. But when, ^D because the need demands it, it has been transferred and covered by the depth of the earth, then if a voice were given to the stone, it could surely say: "He who transferred me here has now founded me." Therefore, the Lord Himself did not begin to be when He was founded (for He was the Word even before this), but after He put on our body, which He took as cut from Mary, then He says, "He founded me," which is the same as if He said: "He covered Me, who am the Word, with an earthly body." For thus He, who takes up our condition, is founded for our sake, so that we, who have a similar body, might be fitted and bound together in Him through the likeness of the flesh, and might attain unto a perfect man, and remain immortal and incorruptible. Let no one, then, be disturbed even by these modes of speaking: "Before the age," and, "Before He made the earth," and, "Before the mountains were established," [index: entries preserved]

For he rightly joined these with the words, *He founded*, and, *He created*. For these things pertain again to the dispensation according to the flesh. For the grace that has come to us from the Savior has indeed just now appeared, as the Apostle said, and occurred after His visitation; but it was prepared ^B even before we came into existence, or rather even before the foundation of the world; and the cause is both wholesome and admirable as to how it is. It was not fitting for God to deliberate about us afterward, lest He appear to be ignorant of our affairs. Therefore, since God, the creator of all things, was creating us through His own Word, and was looking ahead to things concerning us better than we do, and foreknowing that after we were made good we would later become violators of the law, and would be cast out of paradise for our disobedience, He who is philanthropic and good, in His own Word, through whom He also created us, prepared the dispensation for our salvation; so that, even if we were deceived by the serpent and fell, we might not remain altogether dead, but having the redemption and salvation prepared for us in the Word, we might live again and remain immortal, when He for our sake is created as the beginning of His ways, and the firstborn of creation becomes the firstborn of many brethren, and He Himself arises as the firstfruits of the dead. This the blessed Apostle Paul teaches in his writings; explaining those words in Proverbs, *Before the age*, and, *Before the earth was made*, he says thus to Timothy: ^C *Join in the suffering for the Gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before eternal times, but has now been manifested through the appearance of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has indeed destroyed death, and has shed light upon life.* And to the Ephesians: *Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus; even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ unto Himself.*

How then did He choose us, before we were in existence, if not, as He Himself has said, because we were pre-patterned in Him? And how, in any way, before humans were created, did He predetermine ^D us for adoption, if the Son Himself had not been established before the age, having undertaken the dispensation on our behalf? Or how, as the Apostle adds in saying *we have been allotted, having been predestined*, unless the Lord Himself had been established before the age, so that it was His purpose on our behalf to take upon Himself in the flesh the entire lot of judgment pronounced against us, and so that we might henceforth be quickened in Him? And how, before eternal times, did we receive grace, not yet being in existence, if grace were not stored up in Christ, which reaches us?

^A Hence also in the judgment, when each shall receive the reward for his own deeds, He will say: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." How, then, or in what, before we were even created, was it prepared, if not in the Lord, who before the age was founded for this purpose, so that we, as being built upon Him, might partake, as fitting stones, of the life and grace that flows from Him? Therefore, the Word, by justly and deservedly coming into our flesh, and being in it created as the beginning of His ways for His works, is in this manner founded, as the will of the Father was in Him, even as it has been mentioned, before the age, and before the earth was made, and before the mountains were settled, and before the fountains issued forth—so that when the earth, and the mountains, and the forms of things that appear have passed away at the consummation of the age, we might not be worn away together with them, but might be able to live even after these things, having the life and spiritual blessing ^B prepared for us before these things in the Word Himself by election. For thus we shall be able not to have life only for a time, but to remain living even after these things in Christ, since even before these things our life had been founded and prepared in Christ. For it was not fitting that our life should be founded in any other than in the Lord, who exists before the ages, through whom even the ages have come to be, so that, as our life was in Him, we might also be able to inherit eternal life.

From the third book of the same work against the Arians, on the words: "I and the Father are one."

They then began to disparage the saying of the Lord: "I in the Father, and the Father in me," saying: "How can this one be in that one, or that one be contained by this one? Or how in any way can the Father, who is greater, be in the Son, who is lesser?" And yet, what is wonderful, if the Son is in the Father, when it is written even concerning us: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." But they suffer this result of their own folly, in that they think of God as if He were a body, and do not understand who the true Father is, and the true Son, nor what the invisible light is, and its eternal, invisible radiance, nor what an incorporeal essence is, and an incorporeal form, and its image. For it is not, as they suppose, because it was said: "I in the Father, and the Father in me," that they pass into one another as we see happens when empty vessels, alternately, are filled by one another, so that the Son might fill that which is empty in the Father, and the Father in turn might fill that which is empty in the Son, and neither of them be full and perfect. For this is a property of bodies. Wherefore, even to say this is full of the impiety of wickedness. ^D For the Father is full and perfect, and the Son is the fullness of the Godhead. Nor again does God strengthen the Son in the same way that He strengthens the saints by coming to reside in them; for He Himself is the power and wisdom of the Father. And while things that are created are made holy by participation in Him, the Son Himself is not a participant, but...

^A is the proper offspring of the Father. For this reason, having rightly said before, "I and the Father are one," He added, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," so that by those words He might declare the same definition of divinity, and by these the conjunction of essence. For He said "one," not so that the one might be cut into two parts, which are nothing but one, nor that the one might be named twice, nor that the Father might be now the Father, and now His own Son. For Sabellius, holding this view, was judged a heretic. But they are two, in that the Father is Father, and not the same Person as the Son, and the Son is Son, and not the same Person as the Father. But the nature is one, because the begotten is not dissimilar to the begetter. For He is His image, and all that is the Father’s is the Son’s. Wherefore, ^B the Son is not another God. For He was not thought of from without, for if that were so, there would altogether be many gods, for a divinity foreign to the Father would be conceived. For although the Son is "different" in that He is begotten, He is yet the same in that He is God; and the Son and the Father are one, because, as we have said, the nature and divinity is one, proper, and the same. For indeed the radiance is light, not later than the sun, nor light different from the sun, nor a participant in it, but its own proper offspring. Which offspring is in every respect light; and while there are two, the sun and the radiance, you would not say there are two lights, for there is but one light from the sun, illuminating all things by the radiance. Thus also the divinity of the Son is the Father’s. Whence it is also indivisible, and thus there is one God, and there is no other besides Him. Thus, therefore, because they are one, and the divinity is one, the same things are said concerning the Son as are said concerning the Father, provided that "Father" is not said. For "all things," says the Son Himself, "that the Father has are mine." He who hears the things of the Father spoken of the Son shall also see the Father in the Son. And when he understands that the things which are said of the Son are also said of the Father, he shall behold the Son in the Father. For in the Son is the paternal divinity beheld. This, moreover, one will be able to understand more clearly from the example of the king’s image. For in the image of the king ^C there is the form and the shape of the king; and in the king himself there is the form which is in the image. For the likeness in the king’s image is exact, so that he who looks upon the image sees the king in it, and he who again looks upon the king recognizes that he is the one who was in the image. And because of the lack of difference in the likeness, one who wished to behold the king by means of the image might have the image say: "I and the king are one. For I am in him, and he is in me, and what you see in me, this you see in him. And what you have seen in him, this you see in me." Whosoever, therefore, worships the image, worships the king in it. For the image is his form and shape. Since, therefore, the Son is the image of the Father, it is necessary to understand that the divinity and the proper quality of the Father is the being of the Son, and ^D that which the words signify: "Who existing in the form of God." Furthermore, the form of the divinity is not from the Father, but the fullness of the Father’s divinity is the essence of the Son, and the Word, the Son, is God. Wherefore, being equal, He did not count it robbery to be equal to God. And because the divinity and the form of the Son is not another’s, but the Father’s, He therefore said: "I..."

am in the Father." Thus, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. For the Son is the specific property of the Father’s essence, in whom the creation was reconciled to God. Thus, the works which the Son performs are the Father’s works. For the Son is the form of the Father’s divinity, who performs the works. And thus he who sees the Son sees the Father. For the Son exists in the paternal divinity, and is contemplated therein; and the paternal form which is in Him shows the Father in Him. And thus is the Father in the Son. And the property and divinity from the Father, in the Son, shows the Son to be in the Father, and always inseparable from Him. And he who hears, and sees the things said concerning the Father, also sees these things said concerning the Son—not bestowed by grace, or through participation in His essence, but because the very being of the Son is a birth proper to the paternal essence—he will understand well what has been said, as I have previously stated: "I in the Father, and the Father in me," and, "I and the Father are one." For the Son is such as the Father is, because He has all the things that are the Father’s. Wherefore He is also signified along with the Father. For no one would be called a father, unless a son existed. For he who calls God a "maker" does not necessarily show forth the things that have been made; for He is ^C maker and artisan even before those things exist. But he who says "Father" immediately signifies also the essence of the Son. Therefore, he who believes in the Son believes also in the Father. For he believes in the property of the Father’s essence. And thus there is one faith in one God. And he who adores and worships the Son, in the Son adores and worships the Father also. For there is one divinity, and therefore one honor, and one adoration in the Son, and through the Son is shown to the Father. And those who adore in this way adore one God. For there is one God, and there is no other besides Him. And those words: "I am, and besides me there is no other God"; and "I am the first"; and "I am after these," are rightly said. For God is one, and alone, and first. Nor do these words remove the Son. Far from it! For the Son Himself is also in the One, and Only, and First. As being the only Word, and wisdom, and splendor of the One, and Only, and First. These things, therefore, are not said so that the Son might be removed, but so that it might be shown that there is no other, such as the Father is, and such as the Word is. For indeed, since those who worship false ^D gods depart from the true God, God, who is kind and cares for men, calling back and turning them away from error, says: "I am God alone," and "I am, and besides me there is no God," and other sayings of this kind. He speaks all these things so that He may expel those things which do not exist, and convert all men to Himself. And just as if someone, when it was day and the sun were shining, were to paint wood, and with no regard for the light were to say that the painting was the cause of the light, but the sun, observing the matter, were to shout: "I, I say, am the light of the day, and no other light of the day exists besides mine"—if the sun were to speak thus, it would not be aimed at excluding its own splendor, but at excluding the error and stupidity of him who had painted the form of the wood; so God says: "I am"; and "I God alone, and there is no other besides me," so that He might turn men away and call them back from worshiping false gods, and to Himself, the true [God].

^A But these men, in turn, call these things into controversy with certain trifles of their own. They maintain that the Father and the Son are one, not in the way the Church proclaims, but as they themselves wish. For since, they say, whatever things the Father wills, the Son also wills, and He does not oppose His counsels and judgments, but in all things agrees with Him, and teaches and delivers the same decrees and a rationale consistent and congruent with the doctrine of the Father, it follows that the Father and the Son are one. Some have dared not only to say these things, but even to write them—things than which nothing more absurd or foreign to reason could be uttered. For if the Father and the Son are one for this reason, and if the Son is similar to the Father in this way, see whether those who are superior to us—Angels, Principalities, Powers, ^B Thrones, and Dominions—might not also be, like Him, "sons," and whether it might not be said of them, too, that they and the Father are one, and that each one of them is an image and word of the Father. For what God wills, they also will, and they do not differ in opinions or judgments, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory unless they also willed those things that the Father wills. For it was not said to those who obeyed, but to him who was contumacious: "How did Lucifer, who rose in the morning, fall from heaven!" If these things have it so, why is only the Son the Only-begotten, and the Word, and the Wisdom? Or why, when so many are like the Father, is He alone the image? ^C Furthermore, many among men will also be found similar to the Father, such as the martyrs, the prophets, the apostles, and before them the patriarchs. Many, even now, have kept the commandment of the Father, becoming "merciful, as our Father who is in heaven," keeping the text: "Be therefore imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us." There have also been many imitators of Paul, as he himself was of Christ; yet none of them is the Word, nor the Only-begotten Son, nor the Image, nor has any of them dared to say: "I and the Father are one," or "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." But concerning all of them it has been said: "Who is like to thee among gods, O Lord? Or who shall be compared to thee among the sons of God?" ^D As for Him, He alone is the true and natural image of the Father. For although we have been made to the image, and are called the image and glory of God, we are so not because of ourselves, but because of the image and true glory of God that dwells in us—the Word of God, who for our sake became flesh, and from whom we have received the grace of this name. It is necessary, however, that the similarity and the unity lead to the very essence of the Son. For if this does not happen, He will merely appear to have, as it has been said, a resemblance, and He will not be similar to the Father, but will be similar to the decrees of the Father, while differing from the Father—because the Father is indeed the Father, but the decrees and the doctrine belong to the Father. Wherefore, if the Son is similar to the Father only as regards the institutions and the doctrine, it follows that He is the Father in name only, but the Son, [in reality, is] not the true and certain [image] of the Father...

^A nor does He seem to possess any property or likeness of the Father. For what likeness to the Father is there for them, if He is mutable? And Paul taught the likenesses of those things which the Savior taught, yet he was not like Him in essence. Such are the trifles of these men. But the Son and the Father are one, just as we recognize the Son [to be] with the Father, and the splendor [to be] with the sun. From which it comes about that while the Son acts, the Father acts, and when the Son comes to the saints, the Father comes in the Son. For the Father is discerned in the image, and the light is in the splendor. Therefore, as we said a little before, when the Father grants grace and peace, the Son grants it, as Paul signifies in all his Epistles, saying: "Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." ^B For the grace from the Father in the Son is one and the same, as the light of the sun and of the splendor is one. Again, writing to the Thessalonians, he prays, saying: "Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you." In which place, indeed, it must be observed that he does not say "direct" in the plural, but "direct" in the singular, so that he may show that grace is not given as if from two—a double grace—but that the Father gives this through the Son. And this giving demonstrates the unity of the Father and the Son.

From the same discourse.

The blessed John will explain the meaning of these written words more briefly and perfectly than we, and he will stop the Arians ^C from thinking themselves to be such as the Son is. Otherwise, they themselves also will hear: "You are a man, and not God; and do not, since you are a pauper, compare yourself with the wealthy." John therefore writes thus, saying: "In this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." Therefore, through the grace of the Spirit given to us, we both come to be in Him, and He in us. And since the Spirit is of God, because of this, when He is in us, we ourselves, having the Spirit, are reasonably deemed to be in God. And thus God is in us, but not as the Son is in the Father. ^D For the Son is not a partaker of the Spirit, so that on account of this He might be in the Father, nor is He one who receives the Spirit; but rather, He Himself grants it to all. Nor does the Spirit join the Word to the Father, but rather the Spirit receives this from the Word. And indeed, the Son is in the Father, as the Word proper [to Him] and His splendor. But we, without the Spirit, as strangers and aliens, are far removed from God; whereas the Spirit, through communion with

the Godhead, brings us into union. Therefore, our being in the Father is not our own, but that of the Spirit who is in us and remains in us, as long as we preserve Him in ourselves by our confession. And since John says again: "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God," what similarity, and what equality, have we with the Son? Or how are the Arians not refuted on every side, and most especially by John, in that the Son is in the Father in one way, while we come to be in Him in another? And we shall never be as He is, nor does the Word happen to be as we are, unless they dare to say—as they do in all things—that the Son also came to be in the Father through participation in the Spirit and through betterment of action. But this is again ^B excessively impious, even to take into one’s thought at all. For He Himself, as has been said, gives the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, this He has from the Word. Therefore, when the Father says concerning us: "As You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us," He does not mean that we possess the identity of abiding in Him; rather, it is a petition to the Father, as John wrote, that He might grant the Spirit through Him to those who believe, through whom we also appear to be in God, and according to this, to be united to Him. For since the Word is in the Father, and the Spirit is given from the Word, He desires us to receive the Spirit, so that, when we receive Him, then having the Spirit of the Word who is in the Father, we may also appear, through the Spirit, to have come to be in the Word, and through Him in the Father. But if He says "we," it is nothing other than that the grace which has come to the disciples should be unfailing and irrevocable; which the Apostle, knowing, said: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" For the gifts of God are irrevocable, as is the grace of the calling. For it is the Spirit who exists in God, and not we of ourselves. And just as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be and shall be considered to have come to be in the Son and in the Father, because of the Spirit being in us, just as He is in the Word who is in the Father. When, therefore, anyone falls from the Spirit on account of some wickedness, that person who has fallen is no longer in God, because the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who is in God, has departed from him; but he will be in that one to whom he subjected himself by sinning, as happened in the case of Saul. For the Spirit of the Lord departed from him, and an evil spirit tormented him.

^D *From the same book.*

How, he says, can the Son be by nature from the Father, or similar to Him in essence, when He says: "All authority has been given to Me"; and: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son"; and: "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand"; and again: "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father"; and again: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me"? Then they reason thus:

^A If such was the nature of the Son as you affirm, there would have been no need for Him to receive these things. How can He be by nature the true power of the Father, who, when the time of suffering drew near, says: "Now my soul is troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Son." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." And again, He spoke similarly: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"; and: "When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in the spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." From these things the wicked conclude: If He had been the power, He would certainly not have trembled, but rather would have provided strength and power to others. Then they say: If He were by nature the true and proper Wisdom of the Father, why is it written: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man"? And when He came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples whom men said that He was. And when He arrived at Bethany, He asked where Lazarus was laid. Moreover, He said to His disciples: "How many loaves have you?" How, then, they say, can this one be Wisdom, who increases in wisdom, and is ignorant of what He chooses to learn from others? And the same men also say: How can He be the proper Word of the Father, without whom the Father never was, and through whom He made all things, as you say, He who on the Cross cried out: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And before this, praying: "Glorify thy Son"; and: "Glorify thou me, O Father, with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." He also prayed in solitude; and exhorted His disciples to pray, that they might not enter into temptation. And: "The spirit indeed," He said, "is willing, but the flesh is weak." And: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels, neither the Son." Then the wretches say again concerning these things: If, as you imagine, He had always existed with God as the Word, He would not have been ignorant of that day, but would have known it as the Word; nor would He have been forsaken, as one co-existing with Him; nor would He have asked for glory, having it in the Father; nor, in short, would He have prayed at all, since as the Word He lacked nothing; but since He is a creature and one of the created things, for this reason He said such things, and needed those things which He did not have. For it is the property of created things to be in need, and to require things they do not possess. These are the things which the impious in their madness utter. Who, indeed, when contemplating such matters, could even more boldly inquire: Why did the Word become flesh at all? And again add: For how could He who was God become man? Or how could He who is without a body wear a body? ^D Or even, more Jewish-like after the example of Caiaphas, say: Why, being a man, does He make Himself God? For the Ariomanites, reading these and similar things which the Jews then murmured at while seeing Him, now disbelieve and have fallen into blasphemy. If, therefore, anyone were to compare these things…

^A of the Jews and the Arians with one another, he will easily perceive that they fall into the very same infidelity, that their impiety and audacity are equal, and that their battle against us is a common one. For the Jews said: “How can he who is a man be God?” The Arians, on the other hand, say: “If He was true God from God, how could He become man?” The Jews further took scandal and carped with such words: “If He were the Son of God, He would not have endured the cross.” On the opposite side, the Arians ask us these things: “Why do you dare to assert that He is the Word proper to the nature of the Father, who has a body that can suffer?” Likewise, the Jews sought to kill the Lord because He called God His own Father and made Himself equal to Him, testifying that He performed the same works as the Father. The doctrine of the Arians is the same, namely, that He is neither equal to God, nor is God the Father proper and natural to the Word; and they even seek the death of those who think thus. Furthermore, this also was the speech of the Jews: “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How, then, does he say, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ and ‘I have come down from heaven’?” The Arians follow them, ^B and they themselves say likewise: “How can there be a Word or God who sleeps as a man, and weeps, and makes inquiry?” Both, therefore, from those human things which the Saviour endured on account of the flesh He had assumed, deny the eternity and divinity of the Word.

From the same book regarding the goal of the holy and divine Scripture, that it understands the proclamation concerning the Saviour to be twofold, the one as of the eternal Son and God, the other as of Him who later truly and perfectly became man.

The goal, therefore, and character of the holy Scripture, as we have often said, is that the proclamation concerning the Saviour within it is twofold: that He both was ever God and is Son, being the Word and radiance and wisdom of the Father; and that later, for our sake, having taken flesh from the Virgin ^C Theotokos Mary, He became human. And it is possible to find this signified throughout the whole of divinely inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said: “Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me.” Lest, however, by gathering all the phrases, I should become lengthy in writing, let it suffice, as though mentioning all, that John says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing.” Then: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.” And Paul writing: “Who, being in the form of God, ^D deemed it not robbery to be equal…

^A to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” For from these things, if anyone with the same insight should examine the whole Scripture, he will see how in the beginning the Father said to Him: “Let there be light,” and, “Let there be a firmament,” and, “Let Us make man”; but at the consummation of the ages He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

He, therefore, who reads the divine Scripture should indeed learn the words from the Old Testament, but from the Gospels let him consider that the Lord was made man. For the Word, he says, became flesh, and dwelt among us. He became man, I say, and did not come *into* a man. For it is also necessary to know this, lest perhaps falling into this opinion, the impious deceive some, and they should believe that, just as in the former times it happened in each of the saints, so now too the Word ^B has settled into a man, sanctifying even this one, and appearing just as in the others. For if it were so, and He had appeared only in a man, there would have been nothing marvelous, nor would those who saw Him have been struck with amazement and said: “Whence is this?” and, “Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?” For they had become accustomed to hearing: “The word of the Lord came to each of the prophets.” But now, since the Word of God, through whom all things were made, endured also to become the Son of man, and humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant: therefore the cross of Christ is to the Jews a stumbling block, but to us Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the Word, as John ^C said, became flesh; for it is the custom of holy Scripture to call man “flesh,” as it says through Joel the prophet: “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” And Daniel has said to Astyages: “I do not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who created the heaven and the earth, and has dominion over all flesh.” For here, as also in Joel, He signifies the race of men by the name of flesh.

In the past, therefore, the Word came to each of the saints, and made those who worthily received Him holy; yet it was not said, when they were being born, that He Himself had been made man, nor, when they were suffering, that He ^D suffered. But when, in the consummation of the ages, He came forth from Mary for the putting away of sin (for so it pleased the Father to send His own Son born of a woman, born under the law), then it was said that He, having assumed flesh, had become man, and in it had suffered for us, as Peter said: “Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh”; so that it might be made clear, and we all might believe, that He who was always God, and who made holy those to whom He drew near,

^A administering all things according to the will of the Father, later became man for our sake, and, as the Apostle says, the divinity dwelt in the flesh; which is the same as to say that, while He was God, He possessed a proper body and, using this as an instrument, He became man for our sake.

On the same argument.

When the flesh suffered, the Word was not outside of it; this is the reason why the passion is said to be His. And when He performed the works of the Father in a divine manner, the flesh was not outside Him; rather, it was in that very body that the Lord was performing these things. It was for this reason that, having become man, He said: “If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know that the Father is in me, and I in him.” ^B Indeed, when there was a need to raise up Peter’s mother-in-law who was suffering from a fever, He stretched forth His hand in a human manner, but He repressed the disease divinely. Similarly, when He healed the man blind from birth, He sent forth human spittle from the flesh, but He opened his eyes divinely through the clay; and in the case of Lazarus, He uttered a human voice as a man, but as God, He raised Lazarus from the dead. These things came to pass in this way, and it was shown that He possessed a body not in appearance, but in truth. For it was fitting that the Lord, in assuming human flesh, should take on the whole of it together with its own natural ^C affections, so that, just as we say the body is His own, so too the affections of the body might be said to be His own alone, even though they did not touch His divinity. For if the body had been another’s, the affections would also be said to be that other’s; but if it is the flesh of the Word (for “the Word became flesh”), it is necessary that the affections of the flesh also be said to be His, whose the flesh itself is. And of whom the affections are said—such as, in the first place, being condemned, being scourged, thirsting, being crucified, and dying, and the other infirmities of the body—of Him also are the noble deeds and the grace. For this reason, then, consistently and fittingly, such passions are said to be not of another, but of the Lord, so that the grace may also be from Him, and we may be worshippers not of any other, but truly of God, ^D since we do not call upon any of the created things, nor some ordinary man, but Him who is the Son by nature born of God, and we call upon Him as Lord and God and Savior, even though He became man.

Who, moreover, would not marvel at this? Or who would not agree that the matter is truly divine? For if the works of the divinity of the Word had not been performed through the body, man would never have been made divine; and conversely, if those things which are specific to the flesh were not said to be of the Word, man would never have been completely liberated from them. But if they had ceased for a time, sin and corruption would have remained in man, just as happened to those before us, and this is shown to be true. Many, indeed, have been saints and

^A free from all sin; Jeremiah was sanctified from the womb, and John, while still being carried in the womb, leaped for joy at the voice of the Mother of God, Mary. Yet, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression, and thus men remained nonetheless mortal and corruptible, subject to the affections of their own nature. But now, since the Word has been made man and has made the things of the flesh His own, these affections no longer touch the body, because of the Word who has come to be in it; rather, they have been consumed by Him. Consequently, men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their own affections, but having risen through the power of the Word, they abide forever immortal and incorruptible. Hence, when the flesh is born of the Mother of God, Mary, He Himself is said to have been born—He who provides for other births that they should exist—so that He might transfer our birth into Himself, and that we, no longer being mere earth, might return not to the earth, but, as those joined to the heavenly Word, might be led by Him into the heavens. ^B Similarly, therefore, He took into Himself the other affections of the body, not without reason, so that we, no longer living as mere men but as those belonging properly to the Word, might become partakers of eternal life. For we no longer die in Adam as in our former origin; but since our origin and all the infirmity of the flesh have been transferred into the Word, we are raised from the earth, the curse for sin having been loosed through the merit of Him who, on our behalf, became a curse for us—and most fittingly so. For just as we all, being from the earth, die in Adam, so by being regenerated through water and the Spirit, we are all made alive in Christ.

In order that one might understand more accurately that the nature of the Word is incapable of suffering, and that the infirmities of the flesh are attributed to Him only on account of the flesh, it is good to listen to the blessed Peter, for he is a worthy witness in whom one may place faith concerning the Savior. Thus he writes in his Epistle, saying: “Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh.” ^C Therefore, whenever it is said that He hungers, thirsts, grows weary, is ignorant, sleeps, weeps, asks, flees, is born, shuns the cup, and in short, whenever any of the things proper to the flesh are attributed to Him, it may rightly be said of each one: Christ therefore, while hungering for us in the flesh, and thirsting for us in the flesh, and saying that He does not know, and being struck, and laboring for us in the flesh, and being exalted again, and being born, and growing in the flesh, and fearing, and being hidden in the flesh, and saying, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” and being beaten, and receiving these things for our sake in the flesh; and, in a word, all such things [are to be understood] as done for our sake in the flesh. For even the Apostle himself said for this reason, “Christ therefore having suffered, not in His divinity, but for us in the flesh,” so that those affections might not be recognized as belonging to the nature of the Word, but as belonging to the nature of the flesh. Let these human things, therefore, be a scandal to no one, but rather let us all recognize that the Word, according to the condition of His own nature, is incapable of suffering, but because

^A have known the passions which are, by nature, proper to the flesh. Let no one, therefore, be scandalized by things human, but rather let him know that the Word Himself is by nature impassible; and yet, because of the flesh which He put on, these things are said concerning Him, since they are proper to the flesh, but the body itself is the property of the Savior. He Himself remains, as He is, impassible in His nature, not harmed by these things, but rather extinguishing and destroying them; but men, as having passed over to the Impassible one, have their own passions wiped away, and henceforth they too become impassible and free from these things for all ages, as John taught, saying: *And you know that He appeared to take away our sins; and in Him there is no sin.* ^B Since this is the case, no heretic shall complain, saying: "Why does the flesh rise, being by nature mortal?" And if it does rise, why does it not again hunger and thirst and suffer, and remain mortal? For it was made from the earth, and how could that which is natural to it cease to be from it? The flesh, at that point, could reply to the contentious heretic: "I am indeed by nature mortal because I am from the earth, but subsequently I became the flesh of the Word, who bore my passions, even though He was Himself without them; and I have become free from these, no longer permitted to be a slave to them on account of the Lord who delivered me from them. If you reproach me because I have been liberated from ^C natural corruption, see that you do not also reproach the fact that the Word of God took on my form of servitude." For just as the Lord, having clothed Himself with a body, became man, so we men are made divine by the Word, having been assumed through His flesh, and henceforth we inherit eternal life.

These things we have necessarily set forth beforehand, so that if we see Him, by the instrument of His own body, doing or saying something in a divine manner, we may know that, since He is God, He is performing these things; and again, if we see Him speaking or suffering in a human manner, we may not be ignorant that, wearing flesh, He became man, and thus does and says these things. For knowing what is proper to each, and seeing and understanding both as performed by the One, we believe rightly, and we shall never ^D be led astray. But if anyone, seeing those things which are done divinely by the Word, should deny the body, or seeing the things proper to the body, should deny the Incarnate presence, or because of human attributes should think low thoughts concerning the Word, such a person, like the Jewish wine-seller mixing wine with water, will consider the cross a scandal, and, like a Greek, will consider the preaching to be folly—just as the God-opposing Arians have suffered. For while seeing the human attributes of the Savior, they thought Him to be a creature. Therefore, seeing His divine works, they ought either to have denied the generation of His body and consequently numbered themselves among the Manichaeans. But let them learn, though it be late, that the Word became flesh; and let us, retaining the aim of the faith, recognize the true meaning of those things which they understand wrongly. For these words, "The Father loves the Son,"

^A and all things he has given into His hand; and, "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father"; and, "I can do nothing of My own self, but as I hear, I judge"; and other such sayings—these do not show that the Son did not at some time possess these things. For how could the only Word and Wisdom of the Father, who is by nature and eternally such, lack what the Father possesses? The Word Himself says: "All things that the Father has are Mine," and "What is Mine is the Father’s." If the things of the Father are the Son’s, and the Father always possesses these things, it is clear that what the Son has, being of the Father, is always in Him. He was not, therefore, speaking because He had not at one time possessed these things; but because the Son, who always possesses what He has, possesses them from the Father.

^B Lest anyone, understanding that the Son possesses all things that the Father has, should be led astray by that supreme similitude—which is without any difference—and by that identity of what He possesses, to fall into the impiety of Sabellius by thinking Him to be the Father, for this reason He used such words as "It was given to Me," "I received," and "It was delivered to Me," only to show that He Himself is not the Father, but the Word of the Father and the eternal Son. Through His similarity to the Father He possesses eternally what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, He has from the Father what He possesses eternally. That the words "It was given" and "It was delivered" and similar phrases do not diminish the divinity of the Son, but rather demonstrate Him to be truly the Son, can be learned from these very expressions. For if all things were delivered to Him, first, He is other than all things which He received; ^C then, being the heir of all, He alone is the Son and is proper to the Father by nature. For if He were one of the all, He would not be the heir of all. But as it is, since He Himself receives all things, He is other than all things, and alone is proper to the Father.

That again the words "It was given" and "It was delivered" do not signify that He was at some time without them, one may discern from a similar passage and understand the rest from it. The Savior Himself says: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself." For in saying "He has given," He declares that He is not the Father; but by using the particle "so," He signifies the natural similitude and propriety of the Son with the Father. If, therefore, there was a time when the Father did not possess those things which He has, then ^D there was no doubt a time when the Son did not have them. For as the Father has, so the Son has. But if it is impious to say this, and more pious to affirm that the Father always had them, how is it not absurd for men, when the Son says, "As the Father has, so the Son has," to maintain that they are not possessed in this way, but otherwise? The Word is certainly more worthy of faith, and therefore, all things which He testifies He has received from the Father, He possesses eternally. And while the Father is from no one, the Son possesses [them] from the Father. For just as in the case of the radiance—if the radiance itself were to say: "He has given all the place [to Me]..."

^A possessors of light, and I do not illumine from myself, but as the light wills; yet in saying this, He does not show that He does not have it, but that it is proper to the light, and that all things belonging to it are mine. Thus also it is permitted to understand further concerning the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, has all things again in the Son; and while the Son has them, the Father has them in turn. For the divinity of the Son is the divinity of the Father; and thus the Father exercises providence over all things in the Son.

The meaning of such passages is therefore of this kind. But concerning those things spoken ^B of the Savior in a human manner, these also possess a pious significance. For this reason, we examined such things beforehand, that if we hear the Lord asking, “Where lies Lazarus?” and when He comes into the parts of Caesarea and inquires, “Who do men say that I am?” and, “How many loaves have you?” and, “What do you want me to do for you?” we might know from what has been said the correct meaning of these passages, and not be scandalized like the God-fighting Arians. First, then, it must be said to those who think impiously, from what do they suppose that He is ignorant? For it is not necessary that he who asks ^C should be ignorant of the things about which he asks; but it is permitted for someone who knows to inquire about things he is acquainted with. Indeed, John also, when he describes Christ as asking, “How many loaves have you?”, acknowledges that He is not ignorant, but knows. For he says, “This He said to test Philip; for He Himself knew what He was going to do.” If, then, He knew what He was about to do, He did not ask out of ignorance, but out of knowledge. And from this it is permitted to understand similar things: that when the Lord asks where Lazarus lies, or what men say He is, He does not ask out of ignorance, but knowing what He was asking, knowing what He was about to do; and thus their clever sophism is quickly cast out.

But if they persist because of the act of questioning, let them hear that in the Godhead there is no ignorance, but that ignorance is peculiar to the flesh, as has been said. And that this is true, how is it that the Lord, while inquiring where Lazarus lies, Himself said though not present, but even being far away, “Lazarus is dead,” and where he died? And He who they consider to be ignorant is the very one who ^D foreknows the reasonings of the disciples and knows what is in everyone’s heart, and what is in man; and what is greater, He alone knows the Father, and says, “I in the Father, and the Father in me.”

Therefore, this is clear to everyone, that ignorance belongs to the flesh, but the Word Himself, as He is the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, because He became man, cease to be God; nor, because He is God, does He flee from what is human—far be it! But rather, being God, He assumed the flesh, and being in the flesh, He deified

^A vivificavit. For just as he questioned while in it, so he also raised the dead in it; and he showed everyone that he who gives life to the dead and calls back the soul, knows the hidden things of all much better, and knew where Lazarus lay. Yet he questioned; for the all-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sake, did this too, so that by bearing our ignorance in this way, he might grant us to know his only true Father and himself, who was sent for the salvation of all—a grace than which there could be no greater. If, then, the Word became flesh so that the human race might be redeemed, and so that he might sanctify and deify them, to whom is it not then manifest that those things which he says he received when he became flesh, he does not say for his own sake, but for the sake of the flesh? In which he was, he says, and to which belonged the gifts given through him by the Father. Let us see what it was that he claimed, and what those things were, in general, which he said he had received, so that they might perhaps be able to reflect on it. He claimed glory, then, and said, "All things have been handed over to me," and after the resurrection he asserts that he has received all authority. Yet before he said, "All things have been handed over to me," he was already Lord of all. For all things were made through him. He was the Lord through whom are all things. And he possessed the glory of which he was, and is, Lord, as Paul says: ^B "If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." For he had the glory he claimed to have, saying: "The glory which I had, before the world was, with you." And the authority which he said he received after the resurrection, he had even before receiving it, and before the resurrection. For he himself rebuked Satan, saying, "Get behind me, Satan"; and he gave his disciples authority against him, and when they returned he said, "I saw Satan falling like lightning from heaven." But again, what he says he received is shown to have been possessed by him even before he received it. For he drove out demons, and he unbound what Satan had bound, as he did in the case of the daughter of Abraham, and he forgave sins, saying to the paralytic and to the woman who anointed his feet, "Your sins are forgiven." Furthermore, he restored life to the dead, and returned sight to the man born blind, or granted him the ability to see. And he did these things not waiting until he received the ^C power to do them, but being the one with authority. From these things it is clear that what he had while being the Word, these same things he says he received in an “according to man” way when he became man and after the resurrection, so that through him men might, on earth, as those who have become participants in the divine nature, have authority against demons, and in heaven, as those who have been liberated from corruption, might reign eternally. For it is necessary to know, in general, that he did not receive anything that he says he received as if he did not possess it, so that by the flesh receiving it in him, the grace might thereafter pass securely from that flesh to us. ^D

^A Furthermore, from the same place, these things also: But why, being all-knowing, he said that not even the Son knows, I think no believer can be ignorant. It is because he said this no less on account of the flesh, as man; for this is not a shortcoming of the Word, but ignorance is proper to human nature. Indeed, when he says in the Gospel regarding his human state, "Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son," it is clear that as the Word he knows the hour of the world's end, but as man he is ignorant of it. For it is proper to man to be ignorant, and especially of such things. But here also we recognize the benevolence of the Savior, who, since he was also man, was not ashamed to say that he is ignorant, in order to show that although as God he knew, as man he was ignorant. He did not say, "Not even the Son of God knows," lest the divinity appear ignorant, but simply, "Not even the Son," so that it might be consistent ^B that the ignorance belonged to the Son who was born of men. For this reason, when speaking about the angels, he did not go on to say that the Holy Spirit does not know, but was silent, showing by these two things that if the Spirit knows, much more does the Word, as the Word, know—from whom the Spirit also receives—and that by being silent about the Spirit, he made it clear that he said "Not even the Son" concerning his own human ministry.

Who, except the Arians, would not agree that he who knows the Father knows much more the totality of created things, in which the end of the world itself is included? And if the day and the hour were fixed by the Father, it is evident that they were fixed through the Son, and he himself knows what was fixed through him. For there is nothing that was not made and fixed through the Son.

Again, if all things that are the Father’s are the Son’s—for this is what he himself said—and it belongs to the Father to know the day, it is clear ^C that the Son also knows it, having this also as proper to him from the Father. And again, if the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is manifest that the Son, being in the Father and knowing what is in the Father, knows also himself the day and the hour. And if the Son is the true image of the Father, and the Father knows, it is clear that the Son has the likeness of the Father in knowing these things as well.

But the Arians, counting the Son of God among created things, little by little prepare themselves to say that the Father himself is less than created things. For if he who knows the Father does not know the day nor the hour, I fear ^D that he might be greater, as those madmen would say, whose knowledge relates to created things—or rather, to a lesser part of created things—than the knowledge that pertains to the Father. But he did not speak out of ignorance, "I do not know," but rather, indicating that he had put on flesh that was ignorant, he said, "Not even the Son knows." And by commemorating the ignorance of the men who were in the time of Noah,

^A he did not say, "He did not know," but, "They did not know until the flood came." For they did not know, but He, who was bringing the flood, did know. Wherefore He also said to Noah: "Enter, you and your sons, into the ark." For if He had been ignorant, He would not have foretold to Noah: "For seven days from now, I will bring rain upon the earth." For just as He, having become man, hungers, thirsts, and suffers with men, so too, while with men, He does not know as a man; but as Divinity, existing in the Father and being the Word and Wisdom, He knows and is ignorant of nothing.

So too, regarding Lazarus, ^B He asks as a man, though He had come to recall him to life and knew whence He would summon the soul of Lazarus. But it is a greater thing to know where the soul was than to know where the body lay. So too, he questions the disciples when He had come into the parts of Caesarea, although He knew even before Peter answered. For if the Father revealed to Peter those things about which the Lord was inquiring, it is evident that this had happened through the Son: "For no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." ^C But if the knowledge of both the Father and the Son is revealed through the Son, there is no doubt that the Lord Himself, in questioning, had first revealed to Peter what He had received from the Father, and then questioned him in human fashion, so as to demonstrate in this way too that He who asks as a man knows as God what Peter was about to answer. Truly, the Son knew, He who knew His own Father, than which knowledge there can be nothing greater or more perfect.

The Apostle, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, writing says: "I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago, ^D whether in the body I do not know, or outside the body I do not know; God knows." What then do you say? Did the Apostle know what happened to him in that vision, even though he says, "I do not know," or does he not know? If you deny that he knew, look to it, lest, being accustomed to errors, you fall into the impiety of the Phrygians, who denied that the prophets and the others who ministered the Word knew either what they were doing or what they were announcing. But if you say he knew, while saying, "I do not know"—for he had within him Christ, who revealed all things to him—is the heart of those who fight against Christ not truly overturned through Christ, and are they not condemned by their own selves, who, while conceding that the Apostle, saying "I do not know," knew, yet deny that Christ, saying "I do not know," knew? The Apostle, therefore, with Him revealing to him

knows what he has suffered. For this reason he says: "I know a man in Christ." Knowing the man, he knows also how the man was caught up. And Elisha, looking upon Elijah, knew also how he was taken up. Yet, though he knew, when the sons of the prophets imagined that Elijah had been cast by the Spirit onto one of the mountains, he himself, knowing the truth of what he had seen, tried to persuade the men; but when they insisted, he fell silent and yielded to their suggestion. Was he then ignorant because he fell silent? He knew, but, as if he did not know, he yielded, so that they, being convinced, might no longer doubt concerning the taking up of Elijah. Much more, therefore, is this to be said of Paul, who himself was the one caught up; he knows also how he was caught up. For Elijah also knew, and if anyone had asked him, he would have said how he was taken up. But Paul says ^B nevertheless, "I do not know," for two causes, as I at least think: first, that no one, because of the excellence of the revelations, might think him to be above what he sees; and secondly, because when the Savior said "I do not know," it was fitting that he also should say "I do not know," so that he might not appear, being a servant, to be above his Lord, nor a disciple above his Master.

Therefore, He who gave it to Paul to know, knows much more Himself. Why, then, did He say at that time, "I do not know," if, as Lord, He knows? As we must conjecture by investigating, He did this for the sake of our benefit, at least as I think. For He disclosed those things that were to happen before the end, so that, as He Himself said, we might not be surprised when they took place, but might from them expect the end that was to follow. But concerning the day and the hour, He did not wish to speak in a divine manner, that "I know," but in a human manner, that "I do not know," so that they might no longer question Him, and so that, for the rest, He might not, by falling silent, grieve the disciples, nor, by speaking, act contrary to what was useful for them and for us all. For whatever He does, this is entirely for our sake, since even for our sake the Word became flesh. For our sake, therefore, He said: "Not even the Son knows," and He did not lie by so saying—for He said it in a human manner, as a man, "I do not know"—nor did He allow the disciples to press Him further. For by saying, "I do not know," He stopped their questioning. At any rate, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is written that the disciples asked Him again when the end would be, and when He would arrive, and He said to them more clearly: "It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has set by His own authority." And He did not say then, "Not even the Son knows," as He had before in a human manner. ^C For from that point on, the flesh had risen and laid aside its mortality and had been deified, and it was no longer fitting for Him, as He was ascending into the heavens, to answer in a human manner, but rather to teach as God, saying: "It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has set by His own authority." But what is the power of the Father if not Christ? For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

^A The Son, therefore, being the Word, knows. For by speaking thus, He signified that He knows, but that it does not pertain to them to know, so that even if demons should assume the guise of angels and attempt to speak regarding the end of the world in order to deceive those who hear, you might not believe them, having as you do the testimony of the Lord's voice. Furthermore, it is not even expedient for men to know that end, lest, having known it, they should become negligent of the intervening time. For this reason, the Word concealed from us both the general end and the end of each individual. For the end of each person is contained in the general end, and the general end is gathered together in the end of each; so that while it is obscure and always expected, we might make progress day by day. Therefore, the Savior added, saying: "Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming." It was, therefore, for the sake of the benefit resulting from this ignorance that He spoke thus.

But in paradise, does not God ask Adam, saying: "Adam, where are you?" ^B And does He not examine Cain as well, saying: "Where is Abel your brother?" What, then, do you say about this? For if you think that He is ignorant and for this reason asks, you have already joined the Manichaeans. For such audacity belongs to them. But if, fearing to be openly called Manichaeans, you force yourselves to say that He asks even while knowing, what absurdity or what novelty do you see, such that you fall away if the Son, in whom God was then asking, the same Son now clothed in flesh, asks as a man? Unless, indeed, having become Manichaeans, you wish to reproach even that questioning which took place toward Adam, only so that you may behave arrogantly in your evil thoughts.

For since you are refuted in all things, you again grow tumultuous on account of those words which were written by Luke. For he says: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." It is necessary, therefore, to interrogate you again, just as ^C the Sadducees and Pharisees were interrogated: Is Jesus Christ a man, as are all other men, or is He God bearing flesh? If He is an ordinary man, like other men, let Him increase as a man; this, indeed, is the opinion of Samosatensis, which you also follow, although you conceal it, fearing the judgment of men. But if He is God bearing flesh—since this, too, is the truth—what does He increase in, seeing that He is equal to God, or how is the Son augmented, who is always in the Father? For if He, existing always in the Father, makes progress and grows, then there is assuredly something above the Father to which He, in growing, might arrive. Furthermore, if, having become man, He was increasing, it follows that before He became man He was imperfect. And the flesh, rather, was the perfecting of Him, ^D not He of the flesh. Moreover, if the Word, being what He is, makes progress, what greater thing can He attain than to be what He is—that is to say, Word, and wisdom, and Son, and God—of whom, if someone can in some way become a partaker as a ray, that person becomes most perfect among men and equal to the angels? For indeed, the Angels, and Archangels, and Dominations, and all the Powers, and Thrones are partakers of the Word and always behold His person.

^A How then does He who provides perfection for others Himself progress after them? For Angels also ministered at His human birth, and that which is said by Luke comes after the ministry of the Angels. How then was the Wisdom progressing in wisdom? Or how did He who gives grace to others (for Paul, knowing through every epistle that grace is given through Him, says: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all") Himself progress in grace? They must either say that the Apostle wrote falsely, or dare to say that the Son is not Wisdom; or if He is Wisdom, He did not admit of progression.

For men, being creatures, can in some way extend themselves and progress in virtue. Thus Enoch was translated, and Moses, growing, was perfected, and Isaac, progressing, became great. And the Apostle said he was reaching forward daily to the things that are before. For each of these had a place to which he might progress, looking to the degree ahead of him. But the Son of God, being alone, is in the Father alone, from whom He does not extend further, but remains in Him always. ^B

It is spoken in a human way, therefore, that He progressed, since progression belongs again to men. For even the Evangelist, with careful observation, when saying "He progressed in wisdom and stature," linked age with progression—but the Word and God is not measured by age, for ages belong to bodies. Therefore, the progression is of the body. For as it progressed, the manifestation of the divinity to those who saw Him progressed within it. And by as much as the divinity was revealed, by so much more did grace increase as of a man among all men. For as a young child He was carried, but when He became a boy He remained in the temple, and questioned the priests about the law. And as the body grew little by little and manifested the Word, it is confessed thereafter, by Peter first, and then by all the disciples, that He is truly the Son of God. But if one must also speak plausibly in conjunction with the truth, He progressed in Himself. For Wisdom ^C built a house for herself, and in herself caused the house to progress.

What then is the so-called progression, according to what I have said? It is the deification imparted to men by Wisdom, and grace, while sin and the corruption in them is effaced according to the likeness and kinship of the flesh of the Word. For thus, as the body grew in stature, the manifestation of the divinity was imparted together with it, and it was shown to all that He is the temple of God, and God was in the body. If they contend obstinately that Jesus was so named when He became flesh, and say that the word "progressed" should be referred to Him, let them be heard: that not even this diminishes the paternal light now. For He is the Son. And it shows again that the Word became man and wore true flesh; and as we say that He suffered in the flesh, and hungered in the flesh, and grew weary in the flesh, so too we would justly say that in the flesh ^D

^A He advanced. Thus, there was neither an advancement of the Word nor was the flesh wisdom; rather, the flesh became the body of wisdom. Therefore, as we said before, it is not that wisdom, in so far as it is wisdom, advanced in itself, but the human element in wisdom advanced, transcending its human nature by degrees and being deified, becoming an instrument of it for the working of Divinity and causing its radiance to shine in all things. Consequently, He did not even say, "The Word advanced," but, "Jesus," which name was ^B bestowed upon Him when He became man, so that it might be the advancement of the human nature. Thus we said previously.

Therefore, just as He is said to advance while the flesh is advancing, by reason of the connection with the body, so also must the things which are said at the time of His death—that He was troubled, that He wept—be understood in the same sense. If, therefore, they take occasion from human affections to think lowly thoughts about the Son of God, or rather to consider Him a man entirely from the earth and not from heaven, why do they not also recognize from His divine works the Word who is in the Father, and thus renounce their own impiety? ^C For it is possible for them to see how He who performs the divine works is the same as the One who shows the body subject to passions, in that He permits it to weep, to hunger, and to suffer other things of this kind. For by all these things He declared that, although He is God and impassible, He took on passible flesh. But by His works He showed that He is the Word of God who became man, saying: "If you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." ^D One ought, indeed, when hearing Him say, "I and the Father are one," to perceive the one Divinity through the property of the substance of the Father; and when hearing that He wept, and endured the rest of such things, one ought to confess that these are especially the properties of the body. For they have a legitimate reason for thinking in this way: that those things are written concerning God, while these are said on account of His human body. For He did become man, and these things are done and said as if by a man, so that He might lighten these very affections of the flesh for us, and render us free from them. Hence, the Lord could not be abandoned by the Father—He who is always in the Father, both before He uttered this voice and after He had uttered it. Nor is it right to say, again, that the Lord felt dread—He whom the gatekeepers of Hades feared when they threw open Hades; because of whom the monuments were opened and many bodies of the saints arose. Behold, even as the Lord was saying, "Why did you forsake Me?" the Father was declaring that He was always in Him, and was in Him then. For the earth, recognizing the speaking Master, immediately trembled; and the veil was torn, and the sun hid its rays, and the rocks were broken. And the thing most wonderful is that those who were present then, and who had denied Him before, seeing these things, confessed that He was truly the Son of God.

^A Now, regarding His saying, *If it be possible, let this cup pass from me*, let them learn how He who said these things rebuked Peter, saying, *You do not mind the things of God*. For He desired that which He asked to be set aside, and it was for this that He had come. Thus, He rebuked Peter as God, but He prayed against death as man. For He possessed a trembling flesh, with which He conjoined His own will to human weakness, in order that, having abolished this also in turn, He might render man courageous in the face of death. For behold a thing truly paradoxical: the very state which the enemies of Christ consider to be one of cowardice, is that by which He makes men courageous and fearless. For the blessed apostles after Him, and the other holy martyrs, so despised death because of such utterances that they considered themselves to be passing into life rather than undergoing death.

How absurd, therefore, is it to admire the fortitude of the ministers of the Word, yet to call the Word Himself timid, because of whom they did not fear death! ^B From the most courageous purpose and virtue of the holy martyrs, it is evident that the Divinity was in no wise fearful, but that the Savior took away our fear. For just as by His death He destroyed death, and by His humanity [destroyed] the rest of human affections, so also in this which is called "fear," He took away our fear, and caused men to no longer fear death.

He indeed said these things, and at the same time performed [their opposites]. For it was human to say: *Let the cup pass*, and, *Why have you forsaken me?* but it was divine for the same One to cause the sun to be eclipsed and the dead to rise. And again, saying as man: *Now my soul is troubled*, He said as God: *I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it again*. For to be troubled is proper to the flesh; but to have the power to lay down and to take up the soul whenever one wills, this is not proper to man, but pertains to the power of the Word. For man dies not by his own power, but by the necessity of nature, even against his will. But the Lord, being immortal, and possessing mortal flesh, had the power as God both to separate Himself from the body when He willed, and to take it up again when He willed. For it was fitting that the flesh, which was corruptible, should [then] no longer remain mortal according to its own nature, but should remain incorruptible because of the Word who had assumed it. ^C For just as He, having become in our body, imitated our own [properties], so we, having received Him, partake of the immortality from Him.

Therefore, they feign offense in vain that it is written of the Word: *He was troubled and wept*. For they seem to lack even human perception, being ignorant of the nature of men and the proprieties thereof. Rather, they ought to have wondered that the Word was in a flesh that was suffering such things, and neither restrained those who were plotting against Him, nor took vengeance on those who were killing Him, even though He was able—He who prevented others from dying, and raised those who had died from the dead. ^D

^A But He permitted His own body to suffer. For this is why He came, as I have said before, that He might suffer in the flesh, and that thereafter the flesh might be fashioned to be impassible and immortal, and that, as we have often said, since the affront and the things that were happening were transferred to Him, these things might no longer touch men, but might be utterly effaced by Him, and that thereafter they might remain for all eternity as a temple of God.

Of the same sequence

^B The heretic, it seems, is indeed a wicked and villainous creature, and like that beast which the Greeks in their fables call the hydra, which, when the former serpents are lopped off, brings forth other serpents, and fights with those who have lopped off the former ones with the putting forth of others, so too the God-hated ones—like the hydra, as they fall upon that which they put forth, they invent other foolish Jewish questions, saying, "Be it so, interpret and overcome us with arguments and proofs, but you must say that the Son was begotten by the Father by counsel and will." If one of those who rightly believe in the Christian religion were to ask this, there would be nothing to suspect, for a straight mind and a sound opinion would overcome the simpler phrasing of the words. But since this question proceeds from heretics, and all the words of heretics are suspect, there is cause to fear that they might thus disseminate their own impiety. For he who asks whether the Son was begotten by counsel says the same thing as one who asks whether there was a time when He was not, ^C or whether the Son was made and created from nothing. For whence, or from what place of Scripture, do they bring these things forward again, if not, perhaps, by abandoning the Scriptures, they mimic the malice of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Unbegotten has two balances, thought and will; and that He first thought, and then willed. And what He thought He could not bring into being until the power of the will was present. Wherefore the Arians also, having learned this, wish will and counsel to precede the Word. Those men, then, may emulate the doctrine of Valentinus; but we, who are conversant with the holy Scriptures, find it said of Him that He is, and that He alone is, and that He is in the Father, and that He is the image of the Father. But regarding only those things that are created, which once were not but were made, we read that counsel and will have preceded them, as David sings in the hundred and thirteenth psalm thus: "Our God is in heaven and on earth; ^D all things whatsoever He willed, He did" (Ps. CXIII, 3); and in the hundred and tenth: "The works of the Lord are great, sought out unto all His wills" (Ps. CX, 2). And again in the hundred and thirty-fourth: "All things whatsoever the Lord willed, He did in heaven, and in earth, and in the seas, and in all the abysses" (Ps. CXXXIV, 6). If, therefore, the Word is a work and a thing made, and one of all things, let it be said that He also was made by counsel; for thus has Scripture shown that things created come into being. Asterius also, the advocate of the heresy, agreeing with this, writes thus: "For even if it is unworthy of the Creator that He should do things by willing, in all things alike let the will be taken away, so that His dignity might be firm and

^A integral. But if it is fitting for God to will, let it hold good also in the first generation. For it is not possible that for one and the same God it should be fitting to will concerning things that are made, and yet also appropriate not to will. The sophist has compounded as much impiety as possible in his own words, [in] that the creature and the generated being are the same thing, and that the Son is one out of all generated things. But if He is different from all things, just as was shown in what preceded these, and rather the works were made through Him, let Him not be called [created] by will, lest He also should become in such a way as those things which have subsisted through Him. For Paul, not being [an apostle] before, later became an apostle by the will of God; and our calling, as it also once was not, but now having supervened, has a preceding will. And as the same Paul says again: He was made according to the good pleasure of His will. And that which is said through Moses: Let there be light, and: Let the earth bring forth, and: Let us make man, I consider, and it has been said before, to be significant of the will of the one who is making. For the Creator wills to make those things which were not before, but were made from without. But He does not deliberate when begetting His own Word from Himself by nature. For in this the Father makes and creates all things which He wills, just as the apostle James, teaching, said: ^B Having willed, He brought us forth by the word of truth. Ashamed, therefore, at saying that the Word of God is a creature and a creation, and [that] He was not before He was begotten, they in another way again call Him a creature, putting forward will and saying: If He was not made by will, then by necessity, and not willing, God had a Son. And who is it, O most wicked men, who drag everything to your heresy, who laid necessity upon Him? For they have seen what is opposed to the will, but they have not beheld what is greater and superior to it. For just as that which is against one's intent is opposed to the will, so that which is by nature is superior to, and precedes, the will. A man builds a house by will, but generates a son by nature; and that which is made by will began to be, and is outside the maker. But the Son is the own sprout of the essence of the Father, and He is not outside Him. Wherefore He does not even deliberate concerning Him, just as He does not seem to deliberate concerning Himself. By as much, therefore, as the Son is superior to the creature, by so much does that which is by nature precede the will. And it was necessary for them, when hearing of Him, not to think of that which is by nature as being by will. But they, forgetting that they hear about the Son of God, ^C dare to speak human oppositions concerning God—[speaking of] necessity and [that which is] against one's intent—so that they might deny that He is the true Son of God. But let them themselves answer us: whether the being good and merciful belongs to God from will, or not by will? If, then, it is from will, one must observe that He began to be good, and it is possible that He should not be good; for to deliberate and to choose ^D

^A belongs to both sides of the movement, and this inclination is of a rational nature. But if, because of the absurdity of these arguments, they do not accept that He is good and merciful by will, let them listen to what they themselves have said: it is then by necessity, and He is good without willing it. And who is it that imposed this necessity upon Him? But if it is unreasonable to speak of necessity with regard to God, and for this reason He is by nature good, then it would be much more and more truly said that the Father is Father by nature and not by will. Let them give us an answer to this as well. For, because of their shamelessness, I wish to put a question to them that is more daring, yet nevertheless looks toward piety. Be merciful, O Lord. Does the Father Himself deliberate first, and then will, and thus exist, or does He exist before He deliberates? For it is necessary that those who are so bold as to say such things concerning the Word should also hear the same things concerning the Father, so that they may know that such rashness of theirs reaches even to the Father Himself. If, therefore, they say that even He exists by consultation and will, what was He before He deliberated, or what more did He possess after He had deliberated? But if such a question is absurd and cannot stand, and it is altogether impious to speak in this way—since it is sufficient for us, upon hearing it ^B, to know and understand concerning God, namely, that He is the One who is—is it not absurd to think thus also concerning the Word of God, and to place counsel and will before Him? For it is sufficient also to know and understand concerning the Word: namely, that God, who does not exist by will, possesses His own Word not by will, but by nature. How, then, can the Word, who exists as the counsel and will of the Father, be begotten Himself by counsel and will, unless, as I said before, these insane men assert that the Word is begotten by Himself or by another Word? But if they do, it will be necessary for that other one to be begotten through yet another Word. And thus the many-headed heresy of the impious will be detected foolishly falling into an infinite multitude of gods, while using new expressions to attempt to show that the Son is a created being and made from nothing, setting forth counsel and will for Him. Is it not impious to transfer the things that belong to created beings ^C onto the Creator? Or is it not blasphemous to say that there is counsel in the Father before the Word? For if counsel precedes in the Father, the Son does not speak the truth when He says, "I am in the Father." Or, even if He Himself is in the Father, He will be considered secondary, since there exists a will before Him, in which all things were made, and by which He Himself, according to you, came into existence. For even if He excels in glory, nevertheless He will be one of those things that came to be by will. But these impious men do not want the Son to be the living Word and counsel; instead, they imagine that prudence, counsel, and wisdom, as certain habits ^D that can be present or absent, cling to God in a human fashion. They move everything and set forth the notion and will of Valentinus, in order that they may separate the Son from the Father, and not say that He is the Father's own Word, but a creature. Yet the Apostle proclaims the Lord to be the own brightness and image, not of the Father's will, but of His very essence, saying, "Who, being the brightness of His glory,"

^A and the figure of His substance." But if, as I have said before, the Father's essence and substance is not from will, it is manifest that neither can that which is proper to the Father's substance be from will. For such as that blessed substance is, such must that which is born from it also be. Wherefore the Father Himself did not say, "This is the Son begotten by my will," nor "He whom I have had from pleasure," but simply: "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased." By these words He shows Him to be Son by nature, in whom the will of those things which are pleasing to Him resides. Is it therefore the case that, since the Son is by nature and not from will, He is already unwilling to the Father, and that the Son is not of the Father's will? By no means; but the Son is also from the willing Father, and ^B as the Father Himself says, He loves the Son and shows Him all things. For just as the Father did not begin to be good by will, and yet He is not good unwillingly or without will—for what He is, that He also wills to be—so too, the Son’s being, even if it did not originate from will, is not nevertheless against His will or contrary to His mind. For just as He is the willer of His own substance, so too the Son, being proper to His substance, is not against His will. Let the Son, therefore, be willed and loved by the Father, and let no one piously consider this as the God being unwilling. For even the Son, by the same will by which He is willed by the Father, by that same will also loves and wills and honors the Father; and there is one will from the Father in the Son, so that from this it is also manifest that the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. Beware, however, lest according to the opinion of Valentinus you introduce a preceding will. For he who interposes ^C will, and desire, and deliberation between the Father and the Son is insane. For it is one thing to say that He was begotten by will, and another that the Father loves and wills His own Son, who exists by nature. For the former signifies that He was begotten by will and counsel, implying that He once did not exist. Furthermore, as has been said, it indicates an inclination in both directions, so that one might say the Father could have also not willed the Son. This impious audacity, when it says that the Son could not have been, reaches to the essence of the Father and concludes the same concerning the Father, as if one were to say that the Father could have not been good. Just as, therefore, the Father is always and by nature good, so He always and by nature begets the Son. But that the Father wills the Son, and the Word wills the Father, this does not show a preceding counsel or will, but signifies the true ^D reason of nature, and the property and likeness of essence.

From the epistle concerning what was done in the councils held at Ariminum, a town of Italy, and at Seleucia, a town of Isauria

are disobedient to their parents and ^A contend against the ecumenical synod? "These words," they say, "‘from the substance,’ and ‘consubstantial,’ do not please us; for they have been a stumbling block to some and have disturbed many." Those men, therefore, writing in this way, have spoken; but one might reasonably answer them as follows: If these words are of themselves the cause of stumbling for these people, it was necessary that not only some should be offended and many disturbed, but that we and all others should be affected in the same way by them. But if everyone embraces these words—and those who wrote them were not ordinary men, but were gathered from the whole world, and the more than four hundred bishops who have now assembled at Ariminum confirm them by their testimony—does this not directly convict those who babble this way against the synod, proving that it is not the words that are to be blamed, but the malice of those who interpret them perversely? How many there are who, reading the divine Scriptures maliciously and understanding them perversely, accuse the saints because of them! Such were formerly the Jews, who did not receive the Lord, and now the Manichaeans, who blaspheme against the Law; and the cause of this thing, in truth, was not the Scripture, but their own perversity. If, therefore, you are able to demonstrate ^B that the words are evil, do so, and let reason lead the way to the proof; and do not make a pretext of those who are stumbled, lest you suffer the same thing as the Pharisees of that time. For when they pretended to be stumbled by the teachings of the Lord, the Lord said to them: "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." By these words He showed that it was not the Father's words, "planted" by Him, but their own perverse interpretation of things rightly said, that had been a stumbling block to them. For those who once faulted the Epistles of the Apostle revealed not Paul's ignorance, but their own ignorance and perverse mind.

But now answer—for it will be worthwhile to ask this of them—who are they whom you claim are offended and disturbed by these words? Certainly no one among those who think piously about Christ, since they defend and assert them. But if it is the Arians who take this indignantly, what is surprising if they are angry at those who remove their heresy from the path? For those words are not a scandal to them, but a source of grief, because they denounce their heresy as if inscribed ^C on a pillar. Cease, therefore, to murmur against our Fathers for this reason; otherwise, it remains for you to revile also the Lord’s cross, because it is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, as the Apostle said. But just as the cross is not evil—for to us who believe, Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God," even if the Jews rave—so also the words of the Fathers are not perverse, but useful to those who read them with an even mind, and they utterly destroy all impiety, even if the Arians are often torn apart, seeing themselves condemned by them. Since it has therefore been demonstrated that the pretext concerning those who are stumbled is unpersuasive ^D

tell us, why does this expression, "from the substance," not please you? For this ^A is the first thing that must be examined. And yet, did you yourselves not write that the Son was begotten from the Father? If, then, when you name the Father, or when you pronounce the word "God," you do not signify substance, nor understand Him who exists as He is according to substance, but instead signify by these terms something else concerning Him, or, even worse—that I might not say it myself—you should not have written that the Son is from the Father, but rather from those things which are around Him or in Him; so that, by avoiding calling God truly Father, and by conceiving of Him who is truly simple as composite and corporeal, you might become inventors of a newer blasphemy. ^B By thinking in this way, you necessarily consider both the Word and the Son to be not a substance, but a mere name, and consequently you hold your phantasy only as far as names go; and what you say, you believe not to be, but you think it has no existence. Tell us, therefore, how are you not displeasing to this...

This, however, is more the audacity of the Sadducees and of those who are called atheists among the Greeks. Hence you would not even say that the creation is the workmanship of God who truly exists; if indeed "Father" and "God" do not signify the very substance of the One who exists, ^C but something else, which you invent. But this is impious and unbecoming even to think. But when we hear, "I am who I am," and, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord," and, "Thus says the Lord Almighty," we do not understand anything other than the very simple, blessed, and incomprehensible substance of Him who is; for even if we are unable to grasp what that is, yet when we hear the words "Father," and "God," and "Almighty," we do not understand anything else being signified but the very substance of the One who exists. But you have also said that the Son is from God, clearly meaning that you have said ^D He is from the substance of the Father. Since, then, even before you, the Scriptures call the Lord the Son of the Father, and before the Scriptures, the Father Himself said, "This is my beloved Son"; and the Son is nothing other than the offspring of the Father: how, I ask, do the Fathers not appear to have spoken correctly when they said the Son is from the substance of the Father, having reasoned that it is the same thing to say rightly "from God" as to say "from the substance"? For all creatures, even if they are said to have come into being from God, are not from God as the Son is; for they are not offspring, but are by nature created things. "In the beginning," therefore, God did not beget, but "made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are in them," as it is written. And it is not said, "who begets," but "who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." But if the Apostle has said, "One God, from whom are all things," he does not say this as ranking the Son with all things; but since of the Greeks...

some think that the creation consists of atoms through a chance conjunction and, likewise, from spontaneity, and has no author; and others think that it was indeed generated from a cause, yet not through the Word; and each of the heretics weaves myths about the creation as he pleases, ^A for this reason the Apostle necessarily added "from God," that he might make the Creator known and demonstrate the creation of all things from His will. Therefore, he immediately adds, "And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," so that he might exclude the Son from the category of "all things"; for all things that are said to be of God were created through the Son; and it is not possible that the things being created should have the same generation as the Creator; and so that he might teach that "the one from God," as it is said here, is one thing, whereas the same phrase used regarding created works is to be understood in another way when it is said regarding the Son. For the one is offspring, the others are works. Wherefore, the Son is the true offspring of the substance, but those others are creations of the will. ^B This the Synod itself observed, and having perceived the difference in the homonymy, lest some should suspect that the Son is called "from God" in the same way as creatures, they wrote more clearly that the Son is "from the substance of God." For by this, the genuine standing of the Son toward the Father is truly recognized, whereas from being called simply "from God," the will of the Creator in forming is signified. But they say: "These things are not written, and we reject those terms because they are not found in the Scriptures." Yet they put forward this cavil most impudently. For if they think that unwritten words are to be rejected, why do they not oppose Arius, who devised such a flood of notions not found in the Scriptures: such as, "from things that are not," and "the Son was not before he was begotten," and "there was a time when he was not," and "he is mutable," and "the Father is ineffable and invisible to the Son," ^C and "the Son does not know even his own essence," and whatever other such notions he vomited forth in his ridiculous and impious *Thalia*? Indeed, they rather champion those things, which is the cause of them contending even with their own Fathers. Or why, when in the Dedicatory Feast, as they call it, Acacius and Eusebius used words not taken from Scripture, saying that the firstborn of creation is an image of the substance, power, counsel, and glory without dissimilarity, do they now murmur against the Fathers because they made mention of words not existing in Scripture and used the term "substance"? For it was fitting for them either to murmur against themselves or to blame the Fathers for nothing. If, therefore, some other people were taking occasion from the words of the Synod, ^D there might be a suspicion that they were doing so out of ignorance or out of piety; but here the discourse is not regarding George the Cappadocian, who was banished from Alexandria—a man who is neither commended by any past way of life nor is he a Christian in any way, but who only feigned the name of Christian for the sake of opportunity.

^A And he made a source of gain out of piety; for which reason no one would rightly blame him for stumbling in the faith, seeing he is a man who neither knows what he says nor about what he asserts, but, as it is written [Prov. 7:22], follows all things as the gull does. But when Acacius, Eudoxius, and Patrophilus say these things, how are they not worthy of all condemnation? For since they themselves also write things that are not in the Scriptures, and have frequently accepted the name "substance" as good—especially because of Eusebius's letter—they now accuse those who came before them for having used such expressions. Indeed, even though they themselves have said that the Son is God from God, and a living Word, an image of the Father’s substance in all things similar, they now criminate the Nicene Fathers for having said that he is begotten from the substance and consubstantial with the Begetter. But what is surprising if they contend with those before them and with their own fathers, when they also contradict themselves and stumble against their own selves? For having set forth in the so-called Dedication [Encainia] at Antioch that the Son is an image of the Father's substance without any difference, and having sworn to adhere to this, and having anathematized those who thought otherwise, they yet wrote in Isauria: "We do not refuse the authentic faith set forth at the Dedication in Antioch" (and in that document the name of "substance" was written), and then—as if unmindful of these things—a little later in that same Isauria they wrote the opposite, saying: "We reject the 'consubstantial' and 'similar in substance,' as being alien to the Scriptures; and we remove the name of 'substance' from the midst, seeing as it is not found in the Scriptures."

^C Who, then, will still consider such men to be Christians? Or what faith is there among those with whom neither words nor writings are firm, but everything is changed and altered according to the occasion? For if, O Acacius and Eudoxius, you do not refuse the faith set forth at the Dedication, and in it there is written "substance" and "the Son is an image without difference," how is it that in Isauria you write, "We reject the consubstantial"? For if the Son is not similar to the Father according to substance, how is he an image of the substance without difference? But if you have repented of having written that he is an image of the substance without difference, why do you anathematize those who say the Son is dissimilar? For if he is not similar according to substance, he is absolutely dissimilar. But that which is dissimilar could not be an image. ^D And if, according to you, it is so, then he who has seen the Son has not seen the Father, there being a great difference between them; or rather, this [the Son] being altogether dissimilar to that [the Father]. But what is dissimilar cannot be called similar. By what artifice, therefore, do you call the dissimilar similar, and think the similar to be dissimilar, while you hypocritically say that the Son is the image of the Father? For if the Son is not similar to the Father according to substance, something is lacking to the image, and he is not a full image, nor a perfect radiance. How, then, do you read: "In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" [Col. 2:9]? and, "From his fullness we all have received..."

[John 1:16]? Why do you cast out the Arian Aetius as a heretic, even though you say the same things as he? For, to you, O Acacius, he is a friend, and to Eudoxius he was a teacher of such impiety, for the sake of which Bishop Leontius ordained him a deacon; so that, wearing the name of the diaconate like a sheep's clothing, he might be able to spew forth utterances of blasphemy with impunity.

What, then, has persuaded you to oppose yourselves and to bring such disgrace upon yourselves? Surely you have nothing reasonable to say for yourselves; and only this remains to be understood: that you are now feigning everything, and that you are contriving and fabricating everything for the sake of the patronage of Constantius and the profit that comes to you from such a source. And you ^A readily accuse the Fathers, and you simply use words as a pretext, as if they were unscriptural; and according to what is written, "You have spread your legs to every passerby" [Ezek. 16:25], you change your opinion as often as those who hire you with wages and rewards wish you to. Although it makes no difference if someone puts forth words that are not written, provided he maintains a pious opinion. But the heretical man, even if he uses words taken from the Scriptures, is nonetheless suspicious, and because his mind is corrupt, he shall hear from the Spirit: "Why do you declare my statutes, and take my covenant into your mouth?" [Ps. 49:16]. For this reason, the devil, even though he spoke from the Scriptures, was silenced by the Savior. But the blessed Paul, even though he speaks out of profane sources: "Cretans are always liars" [Tit. 1:12]; and, "For we are also his offspring" [Acts 17:28]; and, "Evil associations corrupt good morals" [1 Cor. 15:33]; nevertheless, being holy, he retains a pious opinion and, having the mind of Christ, he is a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth; and whatever he speaks, he speaks with piety. What persuasiveness, then, is there in current Arian doctrines, in which the worm and the locust ^B are preferred to the Savior, and they revile him saying: "There was a time when you were not," and "You were created," and "You are alien to God in essence," and in short, no blasphemy is left out by them? They openly show themselves to all, then, that they fight against that great synod for no other reason than that it condemned the Arian heresy. For this reason, also, they malign the term *consubstantial*, concerning which they themselves think wickedly. For if they believed rightly, they would confess the Father to be truly Father, and they would believe the Son to be the genuine Son and by nature the true Word and Wisdom of the Father. And when it is said that the Son is from God, if they did not affirm this of him just as it is said of created things, but understood him to be the proper offspring of the Father's substance, just as brightness has its origin from light, not one of them would have accused the Fathers; but rather, they would have confidently said that the synod wrote well, and that this is the correct faith concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. ^{C D}

TIT. XIV.

^A substance. Once again, those who attack those who say that the Word is a creature, and who are unwilling for Him to be the genuine Son, have borrowed proofs against them from human examples of son and father, with this exception: that God is not as man, nor is the generation of the Son as human birth, but such as is fitting for God, and which it becomes us to ^B conceive. For they have called the Father the source of wisdom and of life, and the Son the radiance of eternal light, and they say that He is the offspring from the source, saying, "I am the life," and, "I, Wisdom, dwell in counsel." But the radiance from light, and the offspring from a source, and the Son from the Father—how could one aptly name them if not consubstantial? Therefore, because human offspring are consubstantial, must we be cautious lest the Son, being called consubstantial, be thought to be like a human offspring? Heaven forbid! It is not so. But there is a quick solution to this too: for the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, whereby the impassibility and indivisibility of the generation from the Father is revealed. For the word of men is not a part of them, nor does it proceed from them with any passion; much less the Word of God, for whom the Father has declared to be His Son. And so that no one, hearing only "Word," might imagine it to be such as is that of men—that is, without substance—but rather, hearing that He is the Son, might recognize Him to be a living Word and Wisdom endowed with substance.

^C Furthermore, just as when we call Him offspring, we do not think in a human manner, and knowing God to be Father, we do not entertain any bodily conception concerning Him—but we hear the examples and such words, yet we understand them in a way congruent to God, for God is not as man—so too, when we hear "consubstantial," we ought to transcend all sense-perception and, according to the Proverb, understand spiritually what is set before us; so that we may know that He is truly the genuine Son from the Father, not by will, but as life from a source and radiance from light. Or why is it that we do not understand "offspring" and "Son" bodily, but we understand "consubstantial" as if regarding bodies, especially since these things are not said of one thing and another, but of the same thing of whom the offspring was, of the same is the "consubstantial" spoken? ^D It is right to preserve the same understanding of both terms regarding the Savior, and not to interpret the term "offspring" rightly, but "consubstantial" otherwise. For it is a consequence, if you are disposed in such a way and say that the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, to have a different understanding concerning these, and to conceive the Word in one way and Wisdom in another. But just as that is absurd—for the Son is the Word and Wisdom of the Father, and He is one offspring from the Father, and proper to His substance—so too is there one mind for "offspring" and "consubstantial"; and one who thinks of the Son as offspring rightly thinks of Him as consubstantial.

^A And these points are sufficient to show that the view of the beloved [Fathers] is not foreign to, nor far removed from, [the doctrine of] the consubstantial. Since, however, as they themselves say (for I did not have the letter), the bishops who condemned the Samosatene wrote that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, and subsequently they themselves—out of piety and honor toward the men who said this—are so disposed toward this word, it is worth the effort to discuss this matter with them in a pious manner. For it is unseemly to set these men against those: all are indeed Fathers; nor would it be holy to determine that the latter spoke well and the former spoke in opposition, for all have fallen asleep in Christ. Nor should there be contention, nor should the number of those who gathered be compared, lest the three hundred appear to obscure the fewer, nor again should the times be measured, lest the earlier ones be thought to cast into oblivion those who came after them. For all, as was said before, are Fathers; and yet even those ^B who thought somewhat later did not write [their views] offhandedly, nor did they, trusting in themselves, set forth unwritten terms; but, setting out from the Fathers, they too made use of their expressions. For there were two Dionysii long before the seventy who deposed the Samosatene; of these, one was Bishop of Rome, and the other of Alexandria. But when some had accused the Bishop of Alexandria before the Bishop of Rome, as saying that [the Son] was a creature and not consubstantial with the Father, the synod gathered at Rome took the matter amiss; but the Bishop of Rome wrote the common opinion of all to his namesake. And the latter, subsequently, in his own defense, titled his book *Elenchus and Apologia* [Refutation and Defense]. And he writes these things to him: ^C

"In another letter I wrote [as well], in which I refuted the charge which they bring against me—a false charge, as though I do not say that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I admit that I have neither found nor read this word anywhere in the holy Scriptures, yet my arguments which follow, which they have passed over in silence, do not depart from this view. For I brought forward human offspring as an example, which is clearly of the same genus as the parent, and I said that parents essentially differ from children only in this, that they themselves are not children—otherwise it would be necessary that neither parents exist, nor children. But the letter, as I said before, I cannot produce because of present circumstances; otherwise, I would have sent you the very words I wrote at that time, or rather the copy of the whole letter, and I will send it if ever I have the opportunity. But I know ^D and remember that I added many more similarities from things related to one another. For I also spoke of a plant, whether growing up from a seed or from a root, being distinct from that whence it sprouted, and yet it is in every way of the same nature as it; and [I spoke of] a river flowing from a fountain, having received both a different form and a different name—for neither is the fountain called a river, nor the river a fountain, but both exist: and the fountain is as it were the Father, but the river is that which is begotten from the fountain."

So far the bishop.»

^A If, therefore, anyone criticizes those who gathered at Nicaea, as having spoken contrary to the opinions of those who came before them, the same person might justly criticize the seventy, because they did not keep the decrees of those before them; for the Dionysii were before them, as were the bishops who at that time had gathered in Rome. But it is not devout to blame either these or those; for all were concerned with the affairs of Christ, and all directed their zeal against the heretics, and some condemned the Samosatene, and others the Arian heresy. Both the former and the latter wrote rightly and well in regard to the subject at hand. For just as the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, said: "The law is spiritual" [Rom. VII, 14], and, "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" [Rom. VII, 12], and a little later, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak" [Rom. VIII, 3]; while to the Hebrews he wrote: "The law made nothing perfect" [Heb. VII, 19]; and to the Galatians, "By the law no one shall be justified" [Gal. III, 11]; and to Timothy, that "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully" [1 Tim. I, 8]; yet no one would ever accuse the holy man of writing contrary and conflicting things, but rather would admire that he wrote fittingly to each, so that the Romans and others might learn from the letter to convert themselves to the Spirit; but the Hebrews and Galatians might be taught to have their hope not in the law, but in the Lord who gave the law: ^B so too, even if the Fathers of both synods made different mention of the consubstantial, we ought by no means to disagree with them, but to investigate their intention, and then we shall discover that both synods are in agreement. For those who deposed the Samosatene said that Christ is not consubstantial; for the Son is not in relation to the Father as he [Paul of Samosata] thought. But those who anathematized the Arian heresy, having observed the craftiness of Paul, and reasoned that the term consubstantial is not to be accepted in such a way regarding incorporeal things, and especially regarding God, and recognizing the Word to be not a creature but an offspring from the substance; and also that the Father’s substance is the beginning, root, and fountain of the Son; and having the examples of the Dionysii in their favor, namely the word "fountain" and the defense of the "consubstantial," and before these the word of the Savior as an indication of unity, "I and the Father are one" [John X, 30], and "He that seeth me seeth the Father" [John XIV, 9]: for this reason, I say, they too justly called the Son consubstantial. ^D And just as, as I said above, no one would blame the Apostle because he wrote about the law in this way to the Romans and in another way to the Hebrews, so neither would the men of the present time criticize the ancients if they consider their interpretation; nor would the ancients blame those who came after them, if they turn their attention to what intention and what usage they wrote about the Lord. For each synod has a reasonable cause for why some spoke in this way and others in that. For since the Samosatene thought that the Son did not exist before Mary, but received the beginning of existence from her, for this reason the bishops who were gathered at that time…

^A deposed him and declared him a heretic. But because they were writing more simply concerning the divinity of the Son, they did not dwell upon the exact definition of the "consubstantial." For they had every concern to abolish what the Samosatene had devised, and to show that the Son existed before all things, and that He did not become God from among men, but, being God, He put on the form of a servant, and being the Word, He became flesh, as John said; and thus the matter was enacted against the blasphemy of Paul.

But since those around Eusebius and Arius said that the Son existed before time, yet that He had been made, and they taught that He was one of the creatures, and did not believe that the phrase "from God" meant a genuine Son from the Father, but [believed it was] as it is said of creatures—and that they asserted that the "from God" was true of Him in this way; and they did not say that the unity of likeness of the Son to the Father was according to substance, nor according to nature, in the way a son is like a father, but [only] on account of the concord of dogmas and teaching—nay, they even ^B completely severed and alienated the substance of the Son from the Father, devising for Him a beginning of existence other than the Father, and casting Him down into the category of creatures: for this reason those who were gathered at Nicaea, having perceived the craftiness of those who thought in this way, and having gathered the meaning from the Scriptures, wrote more clearly that He is "consubstantial"; so that the genuine and true nature of the Son might be known from this, and that He might have nothing in common with created things. For the precision of this word refutes their hypocrisy, if they say the word "from God," and it casts out all the plausibilities by which they deceive the simple-minded. Therefore, though they are able to theologize and transform everything as they wish, they fear this word alone, as it refutes their heresy; a word which the Fathers wrote as a rampart against every impious device of theirs. ^C

Let all contention therefore cease, and let us no longer stumble against one another, if the synods have understood the word "consubstantial" in different ways. For we have reasonable causes for our defense concerning them, both those previously mentioned and this one: namely, that although we have not learned the word "unbegotten" from the Scriptures—for the Scriptures nowhere call God "unbegotten"—nevertheless, since many of those who are held in high regard have made mention of the name, having inquired carefully, we have learned that this name also has different meanings. Some say that "unbegotten" is that which exists and yet has not been begotten, and has no cause at all; others [say it means] that which is uncreated. Since, therefore, these things are understood in this way, if someone, looking to the former meaning—that which has no cause—were to say that the Son is not unbegotten, he would not on that account accuse another person who, looking to the meaning which says that He is neither a product nor a creature, but an eternal offspring, calls the Son unbegotten. For both, looking toward their own purpose, have spoken well. Thus, even if among the Fathers some have spoken in one way and some in another concerning the "consubstantial," let us not contend. ^D

but let us receive their words piously, since they devoted their whole effort to piety.

Ignatius, who was appointed bishop in Antioch after the apostles and became a martyr for Christ, writing about the Lord, said: ^B "There is one Physician, fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God." Some of the teachers also who came after Ignatius write: "The Father is the one unbegotten, and the Son is one, his genuine offspring and true birth, the Word and Wisdom of the Father." If, then, we are also at variance with them, let our fight be with the synods themselves. But if, recognizing their faith in Christ, we are persuaded that the blessed Ignatius also wrote rightly—calling him "begotten" because of the flesh (for the Christ became flesh) and "unbegotten" in that he is not of the creatures and of things created, but is the Son from the Father—we are not unaware that those who have said the Father is the one unbegotten did not write thus as though the Word were a created thing or a work, but because he has no cause; and rather, that the Father himself is Wisdom, and he made all created things in wisdom. Why, then, do we not bring together into one effort of preserving piety both the Fathers who deposed the Samosatene and those who branded the Arian heresy with infamy, rather than separate them; and why do we not instead think rightly concerning them? ^C For they, as I have said, looking toward the sophism of the Samosatene and his interpretation [of the term], wrote: "He is not consubstantial"; but these others, having understood the words rightly, have said that the Son is consubstantial. Indeed, I too, thinking such things concerning those who are pious toward Christ, have written briefly. And if I had had the opportunity to possess the epistle which they say those [Fathers] wrote, I think I would have found more reasons why those blessed men were compelled to write in that way. For it is right and becoming for us so to think, and to keep such a good conscience toward the Fathers, if we are not spurious, but hold the traditions and the teaching of piety from them.

Let this, then, be called the mind of the Fathers, and let it be believed. But come, let us again examine the matter with them calmly and with a good conscience, recalling also what has been said before: whether those bishops gathered at Nicaea are not in truth shown to have thought rightly. If the Word is a created thing, ^D and foreign to the substance of the Father, so that he is separated from the Father by a separation that proceeds from a diversity of nature, he would certainly in no way be consubstantial with the Father, but rather of the same nature as created things, even if he excels them in grace. But if we confess that he is not a creature, but a genuine offspring from the substance of the Father, it follows that he must also be inseparable from the Father, being of the same nature as he, inasmuch as he was begotten from him. And since he is such, he is rightly called consubstantial.

^A Furthermore, if the Son is not [the Son] by participation, but is substantially the Word and Wisdom of the Father, and this substance is the offspring and likeness of the Father’s substance, just as the radiance is the likeness of light—and the Son says: "I and the Father are one" (Joan. X, 30), and "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Joan. XIV, 9)—how must one understand these utterances? Or with what mind should we accept them to maintain that the Father and the Son are one? If [it be interpreted] by the consensus of dogmas and by the fact that he does not differ from the Father, as the Arians say, such a conception is perverse. For indeed the saints, and even more so the angels and archangels, have such a consensus with God, and there is no disagreement among them; for the devil, who disagreed, was seen falling from heaven, as the Lord said. Therefore, if the Father and the Son are one on account of consensus, then those created things which agree so with God would also be one with him, and each would be able to say: "I and the Father are one." ^B But if this is absurd—and it is truly absurd—then it is necessary to understand the unity of the Son and the Father according to substance. For created things, even if they have consensus with their Maker, have this only in motion, participation, and mind, which, when he who did not maintain it, was cast out of heaven. But the Son, being an offspring from the substance, is in substance one with him who begat him, the Father.

For this reason, he possesses equality with the Father in words that signify unity, and the Scriptures assert of the Son those things which are spoken of the Father, with the sole exception that he is not called Father. ^C For the Son himself said: "All things that the Father has are mine" (Joan. XVI, 15), and he said to the Father: "All mine are yours, and yours are mine" (Joan. XVII, 10). Such, for instance, is the title "God," for "the Word was God" (Joan. I, 1); [the title] "Omnipotent," for "Thus says he who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Omnipotent" (Apoc. I, 8); his being "Light," for "I am," he says, "the light" (Joan. VIII, 12); his being the creative cause, for "All things were made through him" (Joan. I, 3), and "Whatever I see the Father doing, these things I also do" (Joan. V, 19); his being eternal, for "His eternal power and divinity" (Rom. I, 20), and "In the beginning was the Word" (Joan. I, 1), and "He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world" (Joan. I, 9); ^D his being "Lord," for "The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord" (Gen. XIX, 24). And the Father says: "I am the Lord" (Mal. III, 6), and "Thus says the Lord God the Omnipotent," but regarding the Son, Paul says: "One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" (I Cor. VIII, 6). And while angels minister to the Father, the Son is worshipped by them: "And let all the angels of God worship him" (Hebr. I, 6). He is also said to be the Lord of angels, for "the angels were ministering to him" (Matt. IV, 11), and "The Son of man will send his angels" (Matt. XIII, 41); his being honored as the Father, for "in order that," he says, "they may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father" (Joan. V, 23); his being equal to God: "He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God" (Phil. II, 6).

^A For to be from the true God, truth, and from the living, life, as if from a source, is truly to be the Father's, and for the Son to give life and raise the dead just as the Father does; for so it is written in the Gospel. And concerning the Father it is written: "The Lord your God, the Lord is one" (Deut. VI, 4); and, "The Lord God of gods has spoken, and called the earth" (Psal. XLIX, 1); and concerning the Son, "God the Lord, and he shone upon us" (Psal. CXVII, 27); and, "The God of gods shall be seen in Sion" (Psal. LXXXIII, 8). Again, concerning God, Isaiah says: "Who is God like you, taking away iniquities, and passing over injustices?" (Isa. XLIII, 25). And the Son said to whom he pleased: "Thy sins are forgiven thee" (Matt. IX, 5); at which time, when the Jews grumbled, he proved that remission by a deed, saying to the paralytic: "Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Marc. II, 11). And concerning God, Paul said: "To the King of ages" (1 Tim. I, 17); and concerning the Son, David sang: "Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, O eternal gates, and the King of glory shall enter in" (Psal. XXIII, 7); and Daniel heard: "His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom" (Dan. III, 100), and, "His kingdom shall not be destroyed" (Dan. VII, 14). And in general, whatever things you find said concerning the Father, you will find as many said concerning the Son, save only for his being Father, as has been said. ^B

50. If, therefore, anyone imagines another principle and another Father because of the equality of what is said, that is a mad conceit. But if, because the Son is from the Father, all things that are the Father’s are the Son’s (as in an image and character), let us consider with a favorable mind whether a substance alien to the substance of the Father is capable of such things; and if he who is such is of a different nature and alien substance, and not rather consubstantial with the Father. For we must be careful lest, by transferring the properties of the Father to that which is dissimilar in substance to Him, and by designating the Father’s divinity in one who is of a dissimilar nature and alien substance, we introduce another strange substance capable of the properties of the first substance; ^C and let us be put to shame by God Himself who says: "I will not give my glory to another" (Isa. XLII, 8), and let us be found worshipping another, and be thought to be like those Jews of that time who said: "Why do you, being a man, make yourself God?" (Joan. X, 33); when also, transferring the works of the Spirit, they blasphemed, saying: "By Beelzebub he casts out devils" (Luc. XI, 15). But if this is unseemly, it is clear that the Son would not be of a dissimilar substance, but consubstantial with the Father; for indeed, if the things of the Father are naturally the Son’s, and the Son Himself is from the Father, and because of such unity of divinity and nature He and the Father are one, and he who has seen the Son has seen the Father, he is rightly called consubstantial by the Fathers; for one who was of a different substance could not possess such things. ^D

^A Again, if as we have said, the Son is not of participation, but while all created things have their grace from God by participation, He Himself is the Wisdom and Word of the Father, in whom all things partake: it is clear that He, being the deifying and illuminating power of the Father, in whom all things are deified and vivified, is not of a substance alien to the Father, but is consubstantial. For by participating in Him, we participate in the Father, because the Word is the Father's own. Whence, if He also were from participation, and not the substantial divinity and image of the Father from Him, He would not have deified others, being Himself in need of deification.

However, let us sincerely examine the reason why some, as it is reported, reject the term "consubstantial," to see whether the Son is not rather shown to be consubstantial with the Father by this very fact. They say, therefore, as you have written, that it is not right to call the Son consubstantial with the Father, because he who says "consubstantial" speaks of three things: some substance ^B that underlies them, and those who are begotten of it as being consubstantial; and they conclude: "If, therefore, the Son is consubstantial with the Father, it is necessary that their substance, from which they were begotten, should underlie them, and that the one should not be Father and the other Son, but both should be brothers." Although these are the explanations of the Greeks, and we have no need of their reasonings, nevertheless let us see whether those things which are called consubstantial, being from a pre-considered substance, are consubstantial to each other, or to the substance from which they were begotten. For if they are consubstantial to each other, then there will be substances of different kinds and unlike the substance that begat them; for that which is "of a different substance" is opposed to "consubstantial." But if each is consubstantial ^C to the substance that begat them, it is clear that whatever is born from something is consubstantial with the one who begat it, and it is no longer necessary to seek three substances, but only to seek whether this is truly from that. For even if it so happens that there are not two brothers, but only one begotten from that substance, the one who was begotten would not be called of a different substance because there is no other; but even being alone, he would himself be consubstantial with the one who begat him. For what would we say about the daughter of Jephthah, that she was an only child—"And he had not," it says, "other children" (Jud. xi. 34)—and about the son of the widow whom the Lord raised from the dead—that he also had no brother, but was an only child? Was each of them ^D not consubstantial with the one who begat him? And yet they were; for they were children, and this is the property of children toward their parents. Likewise, the Fathers, having said that the Son of God is from the substance of the Father, have rightly called Him consubstantial.

It follows from these things that neither was creation made from non-existence. For men, who beget with some passion, operate on underlying matter, and could not act otherwise. But if we do not understand the manner of creating in God in the human way, much less is it proper to understand begetting in God in the human way, nor to interpret "consubstantial" corporeally; but we must depart from created things, and laying aside human images and all senses entirely, ascend to the Father

lest we unknowingly take the Son away from the Father and join Him to those things created by Him. ^A

Furthermore, if in confessing the Father and the Son, we say that there are two principles or two Gods, as did Marcion and Valentinus, or that the Son has some other mode of divinity—and not that the Son is the image and character of the Father because He is begotten from Him—then let Him be unlike, for those kinds of substances are entirely alien to one another. But if we acknowledge one and only the divinity of the Father, and that the Son is His Word and Wisdom, and believing this, we by no means say there are two Gods, but perceive the unity of the Son with the Father, not by similarity of doctrine, but according to substance and in truth; so that for this reason we do not say there are two Gods, but one God, there being one species of divinity, as light and its radiance—for this appeared to the patriarch Jacob, and Scripture says: "And the sun shone upon him, after he had passed the species of God." ^B When the holy prophets saw this and understood of whom He is the Son and image, they said, "The word of the Lord came unto me." Recognizing in Him the Father who is seen and revealed, they boldly said, "The God of our fathers appeared unto me, the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob." Since matters are thus, why are we afraid to call Him "consubstantial" who is one with the Father and appears as He is, according to likeness and one divinity, just as the Father is? For if, as has often been said, the Son has no property or likeness with the paternal substance, then we are rightly afraid to use that word. But if He is the proper illuminative and creative power of the Father, without whom He neither creates nor is ^C known (for all things consist through Him and in Him), why, since we understand the matter, do we refuse to utter the word that signifies it? For what does it mean to be of the same nature as the Father, if not to be consubstantial with Him? For God did not adopt the Son as an alien, as someone in need of a minister; nor are created works equal in dignity to the Creator, so that they might be honored in the same way as Him, or that one should think they and the Father are one. Otherwise, let someone dare to divide them and say that the sun and its radiance are two lights, or a different substance, or that the radiance is an accident of the sun, and not a simple and pure birth from the sun; so that although there are two, the sun and the radiance, yet there is one light, because this is a birth from the sun. Since the nature of the Son is such, and even more ^D inseparable from the Father, and since the divinity did not accrue to the Son, but the paternal divinity exists in the Son, so that he who has seen the Son perceives the Father in Him, why should one who is such not be called consubstantial?

These things are indeed sufficient to persuade you not to accuse those who have said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; yet, the very word "consubstantial"

^A let us examine in itself, that we may know if the term ought to be used at all, if it is a proper term, and if it is fittingly applied to the Son. For you yourselves know, and no one would doubt, that "like" is not said of substances, but of forms and qualities; for in the case of substances, one would speak not of likeness, but of identity. A man, for instance, is called "like" another man, not in respect of his substance, but in respect of his form and character; for in substance they are of the same nature. And again, a man is not called "not like" a dog, but of a "different nature"; therefore, that which is of the same nature is also consubstantial, and that which is of a different nature is also of a different substance. Wherefore, he who says "like in substance" says it is "like" by participation. For likeness is a quality which might be added to a substance. This, however, would be proper to creatures; for these are made like unto God by participation. "For when," it says, "He shall appear, ^B we shall be like Him," being "like" not in substance, evidently, but in the sonship of which we partake from Him (1 John III, 2). If, then, you call the Son [Son] by participation, let Him be called "like in substance" by you. Yet, if He is so called, He is not truth, nor light at all, nor God by nature. For those things which exist by participation are not truly, but are called "like" by a likeness of the truth, such that they can also change and be stripped of the participation from those who partake. But this, again, is proper to creatures and objects made. Therefore, if this is absurd, the Son would not be by participation, but by nature and truth, Son, light, wisdom, God. But being by nature and not by participation, He could not properly be called "like in substance," ^C but "consubstantial." And as for what no one would say of others—since it has been demonstrated that "like" is not said of substances—how is it not foolish, or perhaps even grievous, to advance this regarding the Son, rather than "consubstantial"?

For this reason, the Council at Nicaea rightly wrote what it was fitting to say: that the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father, and is consubstantial. Having learned these things, let us not fight with shadows, especially knowing that those who wrote these things did not do so as if misinterpreting the truth, but as defending the truth and piety toward Christ, while condemning the blasphemies of the Ariomanites against Him, and thus they confessed the faith. For it must be pondered and accurately understood ^D that when we say "dissimilar in substance" or "of different substance," we do not signify the true Son, but one of the created things and an adopted Son, which is what the heretics think; but when we say "consubstantial" without contention, we signify the true Son born of the Father, even if for this cause the Christ-fighters may often be torn apart with rage. These things, which I have known and which I have heard from prudent men in our discussions, I have written in brief. Do you, remaining upon the foundation of the apostles and holding fast to the traditions of the Fathers, pray that...

retaining them, pray that now all contention and zeal may cease, and the insane questions of the heretics and all wrangling over words be condemned, and that the nefarious and bloodthirsty heresy of the Arians may be abolished, and that truth may shine forth in the hearts of all, so that all everywhere may say the same thing and think the same thing; and that with no Arian blasphemy left behind, that which is written may be said and confessed throughout the whole Church: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen. ^A

The Same’s Apology Against the Arians, on Behalf of Dionysius, Archbishop of Alexandria

The Jews of old, when from so many wonderful things which the Lord was doing they knew Him to be Christ, the Son of the living God, being reproved by Him, and unable to resist His reproofs, used to take refuge in this, that they said they had Abraham as their father, and by his authority they tried to hide their own wickedness. But just as they profited nothing by that, so these men now, who like the Jews take refuge in Dionysius, shall not avoid the same condemnation into which the former fell. ^B For the Lord reproved even those for the things they were committing against the law, saying, "Abraham did not do this," and the same truth shall again reprove these impious and mendacious men, saying that Dionysius the bishop neither approved the opinion of Arius nor was ignorant of the truth.

The enemies of the truth therefore say that the blessed Dionysius in a certain epistle wrote that the Son of God was made and created, and that He was not His own by nature, but was alien to the essence of the Father, just as the farmer is to the vine, or the shipwright to the vessel. For, because He was made, before He was made He did not exist. When Dionysius had understood this—for he was troubled with anxiety—he wrote many other epistles just like this one, which epistles it was necessary to read, so that from all of them, and not from one alone, the faith of the man might be known. For even of a shipwright who has built many triremes, the skill is not judged from one, but from all of them. If, therefore, he wrote the epistle which these men speak of with the intention of setting forth his own faith, or if he wrote only this one, let them accuse the man as they wish; for such an opinion is truly to be condemned. ^C But if the occasion of time and person drew him to write that, and he wrote again other epistles in which he diluted the suspicion of his crime, what is seen to be strange? Even a farmer, because of the quality of the field, now tends to one tree and now to another, and is not to be reproved by anyone on this account, but is rather considered to be admired for his manifold skill.

In the Pentapolis of Upper Libya at that time, certain of the bishops were maintaining the opinions of Sabellius, and had caused so much by their fallacies that the Son of God was almost no longer preached in the churches of God. When Dionysius had learned this, since he also had the care

^A of those churches, he wrote and advised the authors of that faction to desist from that wicked opinion. But as they did not obey, but rather persisted in their impudence, he was compelled by their shamelessness to write such a letter, and to adduce from the Gospels the things pertaining to the humanity of the Savior, in order that, since they were bolder in denying the Son and were attributing the human traits to the Father, he might show that it is not the Father, but the Son who became man for us, and might persuade the ignorant that the Father is not the Son, and thus lead them gradually to the true divinity of the Word and the knowledge of the Father. This was the purpose of the letter. For this reason he wrote in this way, even for the sake of those who so shamelessly wished to shift the faith of the truth.

TIT. XI.

What then does the heresy of Arius have in common with the opinion of Dionysius? Or why is Dionysius considered an Arian, when there is such a great difference between them? For the one is a doctor of the catholic Church, while the other has become the inventor of a new heresy. Arius, indeed, when exposing his own wicked opinion, wrote in an extremely effeminate and ridiculous manner, like the Egyptian Sotades. Dionysius, however, wrote other letters as well; he also offered an apology regarding those things for which he was suspected, and appeared to think correctly. If, then, he writes things contrary to himself, let them not drag him over to their side; for he is not credible on this account. But if, having written the letter to Ammon ^B he was suspected, and offered an apology by mending the former things, and having apologized has not changed, it would be clear that he also wrote the suspected things by way of dispensation (oikonomia). Things written and done by way of dispensation should not be received in a wicked manner, nor should one pull them to his own volition. For a physician also frequently applies to the wounds of his patients things that seem to some to be unsuitable, as he himself knows, having no other goal than health. ^C And this is the method of a prudent teacher: to dispose himself toward the character of those he is teaching, and to speak until he leads them to the path of perfection. But if they accuse this blessed man merely because he wrote in such a way (for the Arians’ excuses on his behalf have become accusations against him), it is time for them to become brazen and say (for nothing is too daring for them) that the apostles themselves held the views of Arius. For they proclaim Christ as a man from Nazareth, who suffered and underwent death.

Since they imagine such things, did the apostles, because they used these words, think that Christ was only a man and nothing more? God forbid. But they did this as wise ^D architects and stewards of the mysteries of God, and they have a reasonable cause. For since the Jews of that time were deceived, and were deceiving the Greeks, they supposed that the Messiah would come from the seed of David as a mere man, and to the others

^A who were born as descendants of David, for they did not believe that he was God, nor that the Word became flesh. For this reason, with great wisdom, the blessed apostles first explained to the Jews those things that pertain to the Savior’s humanity, so that, having fully persuaded them from the visible things and the signs that had taken place that the Christ had come, they might subsequently lead them also to faith in His divinity, showing that the works which had occurred were not those of a man, but of God. Indeed, Peter, who had spoken of Christ as a man who had suffered, immediately added: "He is the Author of life." In the Gospel, he confesses: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And in the Epistle, he says that He is the bishop of souls, and Lord of himself, and of the angels, and of the powers. Again, Paul, who said that Christ was a man from the seed of David, wrote ^B to the Hebrews: "Who, being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His substance"; and to the Philippians: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." What else would calling Him "Author of life," and "Son," and "brightness," and "express image," and "equal to God," and "Lord," and "bishop of souls" signify, if not that He is the Word of God, through whom all things were made, and that He is inseparable from the Father, just as the brightness cannot be separated from the light?

Dionysius, therefore, followed the example of the apostles in doing this. For since the heresy of Sabellius was flourishing, he was compelled, as we have said, to write such an epistle, and to oppose to those heretics the things that had been spoken in a lowly and human manner ^C concerning the Savior, so that, by turning them away through that reasoning from the opinion by which they said the Son was the Father, he might more easily persuade them of the divinity of the Son, since in his other epistles he called Him the Word, Wisdom, Power, Vapor, and Brightness of the Father. For in those epistles in which he defends himself, by using these words he easily declares himself to be constant and strenuous in faith and in piety toward Christ. Therefore, just as the apostles are not blamed because they spoke those words concerning the Lord that are fitting for a man, but are rather seen as worthy of admiration on account of their counsel and the doctrine prudently accommodated to the time, so Dionysius, writing to Euphranor and Ammon ^D against Sabellius, is not an Arian. For although he used lowly words and examples, he nevertheless drew them from the Gospels, with the very intention of proving through these, and others like them, Christ’s advent in the flesh. For even as it is the Word of God, so also the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And that same One who was in the beginning the Word, the Virgin, when the ages were already fulfilled, carried in her womb, and He became a man, the Lord; and one is pointed out from both. "For the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." And the statements made concerning both His divinity and His humanity have indeed their own appropriate and corresponding signification for each of the two.

And he who writes about the human experiences of the Word, knows also those things concerning His divinity. Likewise he who interprets what relates to the divinity is not ignorant of the properties of His incarnate presence; but as a skilled and proven money-changer, distinguishing each, he will advance in piety. ^A When, therefore, he speaks of Him weeping, he knows that the Lord, having become man, shows the weeping as a man, but raises Lazarus as God. And He knows Him to be hungry and thirsty in a bodily way, yet in a divine way satisfying five thousand from five loaves. And He knows Him to be lying in a tomb as a human body, but being raised as the body of God by the Word Himself, of whom it also became flesh.

The husbandman is different in essence from the vine, ^B but the branches are of the same essence as the vine, and are conjoined with it and cannot be separated from it, and they have one and the same origin as the vine itself. But, as the Lord said, He Himself is the vine, we are the branches. If, then, the Son is of the same essence as us, and has the same origin as us, let the Son be on this account alien to the essence of the Father, just as the vine is to the husbandman. But if the Son is something other than we are, and He indeed is the Word of the Father, while we have been made from the earth and are descendants of Adam, then that saying ought not to be referred to the divinity of Christ, but rather to His human presence. For the Savior has also spoken in this way: "I am the vine, we are the branches; the Father is the husbandman." For we are related to the Lord according to His human nature, ^C and for this reason He Himself said: "I will declare thy name unto my brethren" (Ps. XXI, 23). And the Father is the husbandman; for He Himself, through the Word, created and cultivated the vine, which is the Lord's body. Are, then, those matters which Dionysius wrote concerning the human experiences of Christ—as the enemies of Christ noise abroad, saying that He thereby spoke of Him as a created being or as one of men—as they describe? Assuredly he did not write thus in his other letters, but appears to think rightly in them, and is able by them to cry out against these men, saying: "I am not of the same opinion, O enemies of God, nor did our writings provide an occasion for Arius to think impiously. But writing to Ammonas and Euphranor for the sake of those who favored the party of Sabellius, ^D I made mention of the husbandman, and the vine, and other such words, in order that, having shown the human experiences of Christ, I might persuade them not to believe that the Father is the one who became man. For just as the husbandman is not in the vine, so neither is the Father in the body which became man, but the Word. And the Word, having become man in the vine, was called man; and the Son was called the vine because of the bodily relationship which He has with the branches, which we are. In this sense, then, I wrote the letter to Euphranor and Ammonas; and as for your impudence, I shall bring forward my other letters, so that from them prudent men may understand how I clear myself of the charge which you have spread against me on account of that letter, and may recognize my correct opinion regarding the faith in Christ."

Item against the Arians and Eunomians, from the first book of the Great Basil against Eunomius.

^A Weighing the matter, we find that we attain the concept of the unbegotten not by that question which asks what it is, but by that which examines how it is. For our mind, inquiring whether God, who is above all things, has any cause superior to Himself, and then being unable to conceive of any, calls that state of His life, which is without beginning, "unbegotten." For just as when we speak of human beings, when we say that so-and-so was born of such-and-such person, we are not explaining what he is, but whence he originated, so also in matters concerning God, the term "unbegotten" does not signify what He is, but that He is from nowhere. This might be made clearer by what I say. The evangelist Luke, setting forth the genealogy of the flesh of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, and tracing it back from the last to the first, began with Joseph, and saying that he was the son of Eli, and Eli the son of Matthan, and thus reviewing each one in turn, he brought his narrative back to Adam. But when he had arrived at the highest ones, saying Seth from Adam, and Adam from God, he made an end to his counting. ^B Yet he did not therein demonstrate the essences of those he had enumerated in the account of each one's birth, but rather set forth the immediate causes from which each one had originated. As, therefore, he said that Adam was from God, so let us ask ourselves: But God, from whom? Is it not readily apparent to everyone’s thought that He is from nothing? And "from nothing" signifies clearly that He has no beginning; and to have no beginning is what else but to be unbegotten? Therefore, just as in the case of men, when one is said to be born of another, their essence was not declared, so when we call the God of all "unbegotten"—which is tantamount to saying He is from nothing—we are not demonstrating His essence; and he who says that to lack a beginning is an essence, acts similarly as if someone, being asked what the essence and nature of Adam is, were to answer that he was not born from the union of a man and a woman, ^C but was fashioned by the divine hand. For then the one who asked would say: "I do not ask how he came to be, but what material substrate he had," which is very far from being something I can gather from your answer. The same happens to us with this word "unbegotten." For from it we learn how He is, rather than learning His nature. For I see that, just as when we direct the gaze of our mind to coming ages, we call the life which is terminated by no end "infinite," so also, if we ascend in our thoughts to the ages above and gaze upon the infinity of the life of God as if into some immense sea, ^D unable to find any beginning from which it began to be, but noting that the life of God always exceeds even what can be conceived, we call that which is vacant of a beginning of life "unbegotten." For this is the force of the "unbegotten": that it signifies to have no beginning of existing from anything else.

^A

From the same book.

But Eunomius silences the name of the Father and the Son, and discourses simply concerning the unbegotten and the begotten; and, hiding the names of the saving faith, he hands down the dogmas of blasphemy stripped bare, so that, with impiety displayed in the very things themselves, and then a transition made to the persons, he himself might appear to have said nothing blasphemous, while having the blasphemy constructed in the sequence of his discourse. "Being unbegotten," he says, "he would escape every comparison and communion with the begotten." He did not say: Father and Son; but, Unbegotten and begotten. This, then, is such a piece of knavery of his; but consider what other there is. "Being unbegotten," he says, "he could never admit of generation," and he adds, "so as to share his own nature with the begotten." The phrase, "he could never admit of generation," signifies two things: one, that generation does not befit his own nature (for it is impossible for the unbegotten nature to undergo generation); and another, that he does not accept generating. He indeed used this utterance according to the second meaning; but he ensnares the many by the former notion. For that this is the point being constructed, the following text clearly shows. For having said, "he could never admit of generation," he added, "so as to share his own nature with the begotten." For this is consequent to the second way of thinking: that he does not accept becoming a Father, lest he share his own nature with the begotten. What could be more grievous than this impiety? Who has ever spoken such great injustice toward the heights? ^B

I, for my part, fear that we too, while repeating the blasphemies of others with our mouths, might defile our own understanding, and become partakers in their condemnation. But I am comforted by that which is delivered in the Gospels, that the Holy Spirit did not shrink from handing down in writing to those after them the blasphemy of the Jews against the Lord, thus branding their blasphemy for all time, yet without affixing any blasphemy to the undefiled majesty of the Only-Begotten. Therefore, if he never admits of generation, so as to make the begotten a partaker of his own nature, God is not a Father, nor is He even—but it is better for us to leave the blasphemy incomplete. For the one did not admit of generation, and the other did not partake of the nature of the Generator. Then he contends with himself, devising a new mitigation of the blasphemy, not by saying anything that pertains to repentance, but by striving in the latter parts to surpass those that came before. For what has he dared to utter? ^C

EUN. He would escape every comparison and communion with the begotten.

BAS. But if there is no comparison of the Son with the Father, nor communion with the Generator, then the apostles are liars, the Gospels are lies; and the Truth itself, our Lord Jesus Christ. But I...

for my part, ^A again shudder at the blasphemy; and it is easy for anyone to see. For if He has no comparison with the Father, how did He say to Philip: *Have I been so long with you, and you have not seen me, Philip?* and, *He who sees me sees Him who sent me?* For if He neither admits of comparison, nor possesses any communion with Him, how could the Son show Him in Himself? For that which is unknown is not grasped through that which is unlike and alien; rather, it is in its nature that the akin is recognized by the akin. Thus in a seal the image of the one who impressed it is perceived; and through the image the archetype is known, provided that we compare the identity that exists in both.

^B Wherefore, by this one blasphemy, all the voices which were delivered by the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Only-Begotten are rejected. And indeed the Gospel teaches that *Him the Father, God, has sealed*; and the Apostle says: *Who is the image of the invisible God*. An image not inanimate, nor crafted by hand, nor the work of art or device; but a living image, or rather, Life itself, not in the likeness of a shape, but one which in its very substance preserves a likeness void of any dissimilarity. For I say that to be *in the form of God* is equivalent to saying: to be in the substance of God. For just as the statement that He *took the form of a servant* signifies that our Lord was born in the substance of human nature, so too the statement that He is *in the form of God* entirely exhibits the property of the divine substance. *He who has seen me*, He says, *has seen the Father*. ^C But this man [Eunomius], making the Only-Begotten alien from the Father, and completely severing Him from communion with Him, cuts off, as far as lies in him, the ascent of knowledge that comes through Him. *All things that the Father has are mine*, says the Lord. But Eunomius says there is no communion for the Father with Him who is of Him. And again: *As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given to the Son to have life in Himself*. This we are taught by the Lord Himself; but what from Eunomius? Namely, that there is no comparison of the begotten with the begetter. And, in a word, as he abolishes the definition of an image by this one expression, so he denies that He is the radiance and the character of the substance. For it is impossible ^D that there should be an image of Him who has no comparison, or that there should be a radiance of Him who has no communion according to nature. Yet he persists again in the same type of artifice, while saying that there is no comparison of the Unbegotten with the begotten: not of the Father with Him who is from Him, so that, having shown that an opposition exists in these words, he might transfer it to the very substance of the Father and the Son.

*From the same book.* "By order, indeed," he says, "and by prerogative of time, the one is first, and the other is second." What necessity is there that those whose essence is common should be subjected to order and be posterior in time? For it is not possible for His image to be timeless...

and to have no connection not only beyond times, but also beyond all ages. For this reason He is called the ^A radiance, so that we may understand the conjunction, and the imprint of the substance, so that we may learn of the consubstantiality. But also order: one kind is natural, another is artificial. Natural, indeed, is such as that of created things, which has been arranged according to the creative principles, and like the ^B arrangement of things that can be numbered, and like the relation of causes to their effects, once it is confessed that God is the Maker and Creator of this very nature; but artificial and technical is that which is found in constructions, and in teachings, and in axioms, and in number, and things of that sort. Since, then, he concealed the former of these, he made mention of the second type of order, and says that one ought not to speak of order in God, since order is posterior to that which orders. But that which he either did not perceive, or voluntarily concealed, is that there is a certain kind of order that is not constituted by our imposition, but occurs according to the very necessity of nature, just as the relation of fire and the light that is from it. For in these we say the cause is prior, and that which is from it is second, not separating these from one another by an interval, but by logic thinking the cause prior to the caused. How then is it reasonable to deny the order where there is a prior and a ^C posterior, not according to our imposition, but from the succession naturally present in them? For what reason, then, does he reject order being accepted in God? He believes that if he could demonstrate that the "prior" is in no way to be understood in God, he would have it as a remaining consequence that superiority must be demonstrated in the essence itself. We, however, regarding the relation of causes to the things that are from them, say that the Father is placed before the Son; but regarding the difference of nature, no longer so, nor according to a superiority of time: for otherwise we would deny that God is Father, since the alienation which is found in the essence would abolish the natural connection.

Since, however, the wise man, having strayed ^D into this in all things, has departed from defining the nature of time for us, let us see here, too, how firm and circumspect his mind is. Time, therefore, he says is a certain movement of the stars; of the sun, clearly, and of the moon, and of the rest to which there belongs the power to move of their own accord. What then will this peerless speculator of the sublime declare the interval that occurred from the creation of heaven and earth to the creation of the stars to be? For he who wrote the cosmogony by the power of the Spirit clearly says that on the fourth day the great luminaries and the rest of the stars were made. Time, therefore, was not, as it seems, in the days following; for the stars were not yet moving. How indeed, for they had not even been created at the beginning? And again, when Joshua, son of Nun, was fighting against the Gibeonites, because the sun remained motionless at the command...

^A of the order [of the stars]—the sun stood still in place—was there no such thing as time then? What shall we call that interval of the day? What name will you invent for it? For if the nature of time had lapsed, then obviously "aeon" had entered in its place. But to call a tiny part of the day "aeon"—what height of folly does that not exceed? ^B But it seems that out of his great "sagacity" he thinks that day and night occur by some motion of the stars pertaining to quality, and that these are parts of time; whence he declared time to be a certain quality of the motion of stars, not even understanding what he is saying himself. For it would have been more appropriate to call it not quality, but quantity, if one must speak in this way. For who is so childish in mind as to be ignorant that days, and hours, and months, and years are measures of time, not parts? Time, however, is a duration that extends equally with the constitution of the world, by which every motion is measured, whether of stars, or of animals, or of any other thing that moves, just as we say one thing is faster or slower than another: faster indeed is that which traverses a greater distance in less time; and slower, that which moves less in a longer time. But since the stars move in time, he declares that they are the creators of time. Therefore, according to the argument of this "wisest" man, since beetles also move in time, let us define time as a certain motion of beetles; for what he has said differs in no way from this, except in the dignity of the names.

From the same book.

^C That which is "greater" is spoken of either in accordance with the rationale of essence, or the abundance of virtue, or the superiority of dignity, or the magnitude of bulk. But "greater" in magnitude of bulk cannot be understood here. For who would measure with quantity those things that are not circumscribed by any magnitude, or rather, that have no bulk at all? And who, again, would recognize in any way the excellence of those things which do not admit of any dimension? Now, if the seat of God is a name of dignity, what else does the session at the right hand of the Father, appointed for the Son, signify, if not a status equal and equivalent in dignity? For it is announced that the Lord is also to come in the glory of the Father. But to say that the Son is less in virtue than the Father, when Paul calls Christ the power of God ^D , is utterly childish, and belongs to those who do not listen to the voice of the Lord, saying: *I and the Father are one* [John 10:30], taking "one" to mean equality in virtue, as we shall show from the very words of the Gospel. For when, speaking about those who had believed in Him, He had said: *No one shall snatch them out of My hand* [John 10:28], and that *The Father who has given them to Me is greater than all* [John 10:29], and *No one can snatch out of the hand of My Father* [John 10:29], He added: *I and the Father are one* [John 10:30]. From this it is clear that that word "one" signifies being equal in virtue and power. It remains, therefore, that "greater" here demonstrates the reason for the cause. For since the Son [derives His existence] from the Father as principle...

on this account the Father is greater, as cause and principle. Hence also the Lord said: "My Father is greater than I" (John xiv, 28), clearly as Father. And what else does "Father" signify, than that He is the cause and principle of the One begotten from Him? Yet if, according to your argument, Eunomius, the "unbegotten" were ^A essence, and he wished to demonstrate the superiority of the Father according to essence, he would have said, "The unbegotten is greater than I." But it is your own argument that the title of "Father" is of operation, not of essence; and according to your own wisdom, "greater" and "lesser" do not admit of [distinction in] essence, so that the "greater" does not denote the essence [in the way] current in the argument.

From the same, out of the second book against Eunomius.

We find that created things receive the appellation "fecit" (made), so that they are called created things and works; a thing that does not apply to the Son of God. For "In the beginning," it says, "God made the heaven and the earth" (Gen. i, 1). And again: "I meditated on the works of thy hands" (Ps. cxli, 5). And again: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. i, 20). Thus, Scripture, using this word where it is useful and necessary, never sets it forth as less congruent to the magnitude of the glory of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Yet it was not ashamed to call the Lord of glory an axe, and a cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, and other such names, in which those who do not reach the ^B inner signification of the words do not think there is much of praise. Him, however, it never once called a work at all. This name, however, he [Eunomius] claims to have received from the holy men, so that he might involve in his calumnies not only those of his own age, but also the holy men who lived long ago. But aside from the fact that it is a dangerous thing to dare to use such vocabulary and to falsify the names of the Lord according to one's own whim, it was not the Apostle's intention to explain to us the eternal substance of the Only-Begotten, about which our discourse is concerned at the present time. For he is not discourse-making about the essence of the Word of God ^C who in the beginning was with God, but he discusses openly the One who emptied Himself in the form of a servant, and who became of like form with the body of our humiliation, and who suffered death from the weakness of the cross. But that he does not hand down to us the reason for that divine nature, but rather shows the plan of the economy, is evident to all who understand even a little of the intention of the apostolic phrase: "For the Lord," he says, "him and Christ God hath made, this Jesus, whom you have crucified" (Acts ii, 36). He dwells upon that word [made], which signifies His manifest humanity to all. But that man shifts that word "made" to the primordial generation of the Only-Begotten, ^D and he is not even deterred by the fact that the word "Lord" indicates not essence, but power. Wherefore, in saying "The Lord, him and Christ God hath made," he declares the headship and power given to Him over all by the Father.

But these things we will demonstrate a little later, when we refute him for bringing forward testimonies from the Scripture contrary to the mind of the Spirit; but now let us proceed to the matters that follow in the discourse. What then does this name mean to him, and why does he attempt to call the Creator of all things a creature? ^A By a spurious sophism he deceives himself, thinking that by the differences of names the variation of essence also is revealed. Yet who that is wise would assent to this argument: that for those whose names are different, it is necessary that their essences also should have shifted? For the names of Peter, and of Paul, and of all men without exception, are indeed different, but the essence of all is one. Wherefore, while in most things we are the same as one another, we differ from others only by the properties which are observed in each individual. Hence, names are not significant of essences, but of properties, by which, as if by certain marks, individual men are distinguished from others. ^B Therefore, when we hear "Peter," we do not conceive his essence in our mind from that name (by essence I now mean the underlying matter, which in no way is expressed by a name), but we think of the properties which are observed around him. For immediately from this word we understand that Peter was the son of Jonah, from Bethsaida, the brother of Andrew, who from being a fisherman was called to the apostolic office, who on account of the excellence of his faith took upon himself the building up of the Church—none of which is his essence. Thus, this name of Peter indeed fashions an image for us, but it does not in any way set forth his essence. ^C Again, by hearing the name of Paul, we comprehend a concourse of other properties: namely, that Tarsian Hebraist, by the law a Pharisee, a disciple of Gamaliel, who inflamed with zeal was persecuting the churches of God, who, moved by a terrible vision, arrived at the knowledge of the truth, and became an Apostle of the Gentiles. For all these things are contained within that one word, "Paul." Yet if it were true that those whose names differ also have different essences, then Paul, and Peter, and all other men would of necessity differ from one another in essence. But there is no one so unskilled, and so ignorant of the common nature, that he could be led to assert this. ^D Wherefore it is clear that *he* is a liar who affirms that a difference of essence results from a distinction of names. For the nature of things does not follow the names, but names are later than the things themselves; otherwise, it would result that those who have the same names would have the same essence. And since men perfect in virtue have been considered worthy of the name of God, they would all be of the same essence as the God of all. But just as it is clearly the mark of a simpleton to say this, so it is the mark of a madman to assert that. Wherefore, from what has been said, it is evident that it is not essences, but properties, that are indicated by names. Wherefore, there is no place for an argument which infers contrary essences from a diversity of names. For thus it overturns itself in the first place. For if created and begotten things differ among themselves, the essences of the Only-begotten will be different—those which, from the difference of names...

follow. If this is said by those who are out of their minds, then neither is that assertion well-founded. He pretends that he has countless proofs that the Son was called a work by the saints, but he puts off the mention of them for the present, as though hastening to other, more pressing matters. This is also a crafty piece of malice, as he passes over in silence the points in which he is stuck. For if he had even the shadow of a testimony declaring the Only-begotten to be a work, our ears would already be deafened by his harping on it.

From the same book.

EUN. That the essence of the Son was indeed begotten when it did not exist before its own constitution, but was begotten before all things by the will of the Father.

BAS. He is still persisting in the same artifices. He discourses to us about the essence of the Son, as if he were speaking of something else besides the Son himself, and in this way he softens the ears to listen to his blasphemy; he does not openly say that the Son was begotten from nothing, but that his essence was begotten when it did not exist. Tell me, before what things did it not exist? Do you see his cavil? He compares the essence with itself, so that it may seem to all that he is saying something tolerable. He certainly does not say that it did not exist before the ages, nor simply that it did not exist, but that it did not exist before its own constitution. But tell me, do you claim that the essence of the Father is older than its own constitution? For if he does not subject the essence of the Son to times, nor conceive of a "before" in this way, his discourse is empty and vain, and therefore not even worthy of an answer. But this can be said no less of the God of all by those who would wish to transfer this futility to Him. For to say that God did not exist before His own constitution, and to ^C say that He existed before Himself, are items of the same folly. But if he takes "before" temporally regarding the essence of the Son, and claims that His essence was begotten from things that were not—or rather, the Son himself (for as far as the meaning is concerned, it makes no difference whether one speaks this way or that)—he is setting the Creator of the ages as posterior to time, ^D and, if you will, to the ages; then, following his own blasphemies, he will also say that the Father was not Father from the beginning, but became so afterwards.

And yet, if it is good and becoming to the blessedness of God to be Father, how is it that what was becoming to Him was not present from the beginning? For they must surely attribute this lack either to ignorance of the better, or to inability: to ignorance, if He thought of the better afterwards; to inability, if, knowing and understanding it, He could not attain what was best. But if (which it is not right to say) it is not good for Him to be Father, why, through a change, did He prefer the worse

But may the blasphemy fall back upon its authors. For God, the God of the universe, is ^A Father from eternity, never having begun to be Father. For He was neither hindered by any defect of power from fulfilling His will, nor did He wait for the cycle of any ages, so that, as with humans and the rest of the animals, upon the arrival of the power to beget after the completion of age, He might attain what He desired—for it is the sign of those who have lost their minds even to think or speak such things—but He possesses His Fatherhood as co-extensive, so to speak, with His own eternity. Therefore, the Son also, being before the age, and always being, did not ever begin to be, but from the moment the Father is, the Son is; and immediately with the notion of the Father, the notion of the Son also enters in along with it. For the Father is, of course, the Father of the Son. The Father, therefore, has no origin, but the Son’s origin ^B is the Father; between these there is nothing intermediate. How, then, was He not from the beginning (for that expression, "before His own constitution," which is brought forward by them in mockery, means this), He who has nothing which can be conceived of as existing before Himself, except Him from whom He has His being, not preceding Him by an interval, but set before Him in dignity of cause? Accordingly, if the conjunction of the Son with God and the Father has been shown to be eternal, since our thought proceeds from the Son to the Father through no medium, but rather joins the Son to the Father without an interval; he who is separated by no medium, what opening does he leave for the wicked blasphemy ^C of those who say that He was brought into being from that which is not?

Moreover, it is worth the effort to marvel at their madness, for they do not understand that by saying the Son is from non-existent things, they declare Him to be later not only than the Father, but also than that by which they separate the Only-Begotten from the Father. For if there were something between the Father and the Son, it must of necessity be older than the existence of the Son. What then could this be? What else but either an age or time? For he who conceives the life of the Father to be older than the life of the Only-Begotten, by what other thing will he say that he has measured the excess, if not by the interval of some ages or times? But if this be true, false is the Scripture which says that the ages were made through Him, and which teaches that all things were made through Him; for surely the ages also are included in the number of all things. But if they are going to say that they do not deny the Son was begotten before the ages, let them know that what they concede in words, they in reality take away from themselves. For we shall ask those who bring forth the substance of the Only-Begotten from non-existent things: ^D When He was not, as you say, what was that interval? What name will you devise for it? For common usage subjects every interval either to times or to ages; for what time is in sensible things, this the nature of the age is in things above the world. But these men, if they devise a third thing according to their own wisdom, let them speak. But as long as they are silent, let them not be ignorant that they are establishing the substance of the Only-Begotten as later than the ages. For

^B if any space was older than the Son, which obviously extended itself equally with the life of the Father, it would certainly be one of these things. But there is not, nor shall there be, any concept older than the existence of the Only-Begotten. For the existence of the Word of God, who was in the beginning with God, will be found to be superior to all that can be conceived in terms of antiquity. Even if the mind deceives itself with countless imaginations, and busies itself with fictions of non-existent things, and devises those things that are not, it will find no art whatever by which it can extend itself beyond the principle of the Only-Begotten, or leave the life of Him who is Life itself as inferior to its own motion, or transcend with its own thought the origin of the Word of God, or frame for itself ages destitute of the God of the ages.

From the same book.

EUN. Did God beget the Son while he was existing, or while he was not existing? But if while he was not existing, let no one accuse me of audacity. If, however, while he was existing, what could be said that is not only more absurd, but more detestable or foolish than this statement? For why is there need for birth for that which already is?

BAS. This most vulgar sophism, which was indeed devised by others long ago, has now been perfectly elaborated by the shameless and impudent tongues of these men. But we shall first remind the hearers that he came to such arguments because of the ignorance of the multitude, who think of the birth of the Son in a human manner, and he has drawn the minds of the unlearned away from bodily notions to spiritual contemplations, since, because animate beings that are born were not before, and are then born, and that which is born today did not exist yesterday, he transfers this same concept to the substance of the Only-Begotten. And since, he says, He has been begotten, He did not exist before His birth. So magnificently does this theologian declare to us the birth of the Only-Begotten, and with such words he heals the ailments of the brethren, worthy, if anyone is, of having that proverb cast at him: "Physician, heal thyself." ^C And what medicine shall we apply to this shameful disease of the mind, if not that which was presented to us by the Holy Spirit through the blessed John in these words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? Nor is there anything older than the beginning. For if it had anything above it, it would not be a beginning. Nor is it permitted to pass over that "was" in thought, and to look upon a "when He was not." For while we think "He was not," we take away that "He was." For if this beginning were of the number of those things which are compared with something, as is that: "The beginning of wisdom," and, "the beginning of a good way," and, "In the beginning God created," it might perhaps be permitted to transcend in thought the birth of Him who consisted of such a beginning. But since the account of the beginning here is absolute, and is not compared with any other thing, but signifies the supreme nature, is not he ridiculous who thinks of something above this beginning, or attempts to surpass it by reasoning? That word, however, "was," is extended equally with the principle of this

^A For the word "was" does not indicate an existence from time, as in the expressions: "There was a man in the land of Ausitis," and "There was a man from Armathaim," and "The earth was invisible." But the Evangelist himself has shown us, in another passage, what kind of meaning this word "was" possesses, by saying: "Who is, and who was, and who is the Almighty." For just as "who is" is eternal and timeless, so also is "was." To say that he who is in the beginning was not, is neither to maintain the concept of the beginning nor to connect the existence of the Only-begotten. For indeed, anything older than the beginning is inconceivable, and the being of the Word of God is inseparable from it, so that however far you may wish to retreat with the busy-mindedness of your intellect, you will not be able to surpass the "was," or to move outside of it with your thoughts. ^B Let it therefore be asked of him in turn by us: "Was the Word of God in the beginning with God, or did He come to be later?" If you say "He was," then restrain your tongue from evil, from that detestable utterance by which you say "He was not." But if—which it is not even lawful to utter—I shall use your own words against you more aptly, and I will say that nothing can be more detestable or more stupid than your discourse, which, being a man, demands an account of the things spoken by the Holy Spirit, and while professing yourself a disciple of the Gospel, wishes to rise up against it. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." By including in a very few words His eternal essence, His birth free from disturbance, His natural conjunction with the Father, and the excellence of His nature, and by adding that "was," he leads us back to the beginning, in order to shut the mouths of the ungodly who say "He was not," ^C and to block all access to their deceptive arguments. Then, through theology, as if presenting a clear image of the nature of the Only-begotten to the eyes of those who now understand, he points it out by the voice: "This was in the beginning with God." Again, here, by the addition of "was," he connects the birth of the Only-begotten with the eternity of the Father. And again: "Life was, and the life was the light of men." And: "The light was true." Yet, although the Word is fortified on all sides by the addition of the word "was," this man rejects all the testimonies of the Spirit, and does not even think it worth listening to, though it cries out to us so clearly, the "was"—saying, "He was not born, he did not come to be later, nor was there a time when He was not, as you say." What clearer opposition could one display ^D against the voices of the Gospels in which we have believed?

From the same book.

"But," he says, "if He was, He was not begotten." We answer, therefore, that because He is begotten, He was, not as having His being unbegotten, but as existing always, and co-existing with the Father, from whom He also has the cause of His existence. When, therefore, was He brought into being by the Father? From when the Father is. "But the Father is from eternity," he says. From eternity, therefore, is also the Son, joined in a generated manner to the unbegotten nature of the Father. And that this is not our own discourse, we shall set before their eyes the very voices of the Holy Spirit. And from

^A the Gospel let us take this, "In the beginning was the Word"; but from the Psalm, as if spoken from the person of the Father, "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee." And having combined both, let us say that He both was and has been begotten. But the word "I have begotten" signifies the cause from which He has the beginning of being; but the word "Was" signifies His timeless and pre-eternal existence. But he, struggling for his own deception, thinks to lead the argument into the absurd.

EUN. For if, he says, before His own generation the Son was, He was unbegotten.

BAS. But this "before" the generation, O vain man, either subsists in no way at all, and is a fiction of a mind resting upon no subject; and what is the need to contradict the senseless? For this is similar to as if we were to contend with him to whom frenzy has taken away the use of reason; or if it tends toward any of the things that are, it will also be led to the notion of the ages. But if all ages are understood ^B somewhere below the generation of the Only-Begotten, being creatures of Him Himself, vain is he who seeks what is older than the substance of the Son. For he asks nothing different than if he were also to inquire about the Father, whether He existed before His own constitution or not. For as there the question is foolish, namely, to seek for something higher in Him who is without beginning and unbegotten; so also here, it is of equal folly to raise temporal questions about a prior state regarding Him who is from eternity with the Father, and who has nothing between Himself and the Begetter. For it will be similar to if one were to ask what will be after the death of the immortal One, and to seek what existed before the generation of the eternal One. ^C But they, because the lack of a beginning in the Father is called eternity, conclude the privation of a beginning to be the same as eternity, and because the Son is not unbegotten, they profess that He is not even eternal. But these things differ very much in their meaning. For that is called "unbegotten" which has no beginning of itself, nor any cause for its being; but that is "eternal" which is older in being than all time and age. Whence also the Son is both not unbegotten, and is eternal. But some already even deem the ages worthy of the appellation of "eternal," as having obtained this name from the fact that they are always. But we deem it ^D to be of the same madness both to offer the testimony of eternity to creatures, and to deprive the Lord of creation of this confession.

From the same book.

He called the Only-Begotten Son a minister, attributing this as something great to Him, because He is fit for the ministry of things commanded. For if He does not possess majesty in that which is perfect God, but in that which is a diligent minister, in what will He differ from the ministering spirits who blamelessly perform the work of ministry? For these reasons he joined "created" to "begotten," so that even from this he might show that there is no difference between the Son and a creature. But it is worthy to hear also the re-

it will also be worth the effort to hear his warning as well. It is not right, he says, when we hear the appellation of Father and Son, to understand His generation as human; nor, guided by the generations among humans, to subject God to names of partnership and to passions. The warning is that we should not conceive of likeness between the Son and the Father according to substance. For this is what his denial of participation intends, as if the substance of the Father could have no communion with the substance of the Son. To this end tended those grave distinctions of names—the host of which we have passed over—so that, because of those who are called fathers on earth, he might deny that God is the Father of the Son. ^B I, however, although there are many things that distinguish Christianity from Gentile error and Jewish ignorance, consider no dogma in the Gospel of our salvation to be more significant or greater than faith in the Father and the Son. For even those who are severed by some error or other agree that God is the Creator and Maker. But he who falsely calls Him Father, and proclaims the Son merely by a bare appellation, and thinks it makes no difference whether one confesses Him as Father or as Creator, or speaks of a Son or a creature—where shall he be ranked by us? Or among which party shall he be numbered? That of the Jews, or that of the Gentiles? For he who denies the strength of piety and the character, as it were, of our worship, will not attach himself to Christians. For we did not believe in a creator and a creature, but we were sealed into the Father and the Son through the grace of baptism. Wherefore, he who dares to reject these words makes the whole force of the Gospels void, proclaiming neither the Father as begetting nor the Son as begotten. But when I say these things, he says, I am shunning the concept of passion that arises from the word "Father." Yet one who had determined to act piously ought to have rejected the dissonant sense of these words, if indeed any such existed, and not rejected the whole term all at once; nor, under the pretext of impropriety, should he reject whatever usefulness comes from it at the same time. Rather, having left behind the humble intelligence of the flesh, he should have protected the pure sentiment regarding God, and should have understood the generation in a way fitting to the holiness and impassibility of God: to the extent that, while passing over the mode by which God begat—as being ineffable and incomprehensible—he should be led by the appellation of begetting to the likeness of substance. ^D Although it is clear to one who reflects that these names, "Father" and "Son," are not wont to generate the thought of bodily affections properly and primarily, but when they are spoken by themselves, they indicate only the mutual relationship. For the Father is he who has imparted to another the principle of existence according to a nature like his own; the Son, however, is he who has had from another, through generation, the principle that he should exist. And so, when we hear that a human is a father, then the thought of passion occurs to us; but when we hear that God is Father, we raise our minds to the impassible cause. Eunomius, however, accustomed to take this appellation from a nature subject to affections, denies as impossible what exceeds the grasp of his own reasoning. For it was not fitting that he, being born of a corruptible, ^A nature, should be attentive to the appellation, and understand His birth as human, and from the births among humans, lead God astray into names of communion and passions. The warning is that it is forbidden to consider the likeness of the Son and the Father according to substance. For this is what is intended by his prohibition of communion, as if the Father’s substance were unsharable regarding the Monogenes. For this reason [he uses] those solemn distinctions of names, the crowd of which we have passed over, so that He might take away the fact that God is Father of the Son, on account of those called fathers on earth. I, however, consider that, among the many things that separate Christianity from the Hellenic error and the Jewish ignorance, no dogma is more principal than the faith in the Father and the Son existing in the Gospel of our salvation. For indeed, even those severed by any error whatsoever agree that God is Creator and Maker. But he who proclaims the Father merely by a false name, and the Son merely by a bare appellation, and thinks it makes no difference to confess [Him as] Father or as Creator, or to speak of a Son or a creature, where shall he be placed by us? Or among what portion shall he be numbered? That of the Jews, or that of the Greeks? For he who denies the power of piety, and the, so to speak, character of our worship, will not surely make himself a Christian. For we have not believed into a creator and a creature, but we have been sealed into Father and Son through the grace in baptism. ^C So he who sets aside these words writes off the whole power of the Gospels at once, preaching a Father not begetting, and a Son not begotten. But in saying these things, he says, I decline the concept of passion that is engendered from the word of the Father. Yet he who has known how to be pious ought surely to have rejected the absurdity of the thought in these words, if perhaps it were already present, and not to have discarded the whole word at once, nor, because of a pretext of impropriety, to have cast away all the utility that comes from it; but rather to be pure in the dogma concerning God from lowly and carnal thoughts, and to conceive of generation as befitting the holiness and impassibility of God, letting go the mode by which God begat, as unspeakable and incomprehensible, but being led to the likeness according to substance from the appellation of begetting. And yet it is clear to one observing that these names, I say, "Father" and "Son," are not naturally wont to cause the concept of bodily passions properly and primarily, but when spoken by themselves, they indicate only the relationship toward one another. For the Father is he who has provided the beginning of existence to another according to the nature similar to himself, while the Son is he who has obtained the beginning of existing from another. When, therefore, we hear "human father," then we also take in the concept of passion; but when [we hear] that God is Father, we retreat in our reasonings to the impassible cause. But he who, in the case of a passionate nature, is accustomed to this appellation, ^D and is not able to understand what is beyond his own reasonings...

^A nor to compare the immutable and unalterable nature to that which is subject to countless changes, does not believe that God is immune to affections. Nor, because mortal animals beget through passion, was it fitting to think the same of God; rather, one should be led from this to the truth: that since corruptible things beget in this way, He who is incorruptible begets in the contrary manner. And indeed, I would not say that these names, which are applied to men primarily and in the proper sense, are used by us of God by abuse of language. For our Lord Jesus Christ, leading us back to the principle of all things and the true cause of beings, says: "And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven." How then does He deign to have us use these expressions, as if they were primarily indicative of carnal passions—expressions which our Lord, as being becoming to the impassibility of God, transfers ^B from men to Himself? If, however, He is also called Father of creatures, this in no way conflicts with our argument. For He who "begets the drops of dew," according to the word of Job, did not beget the drops and the Son in the same way. But if they dare to say this, so as to name the substance of the dew the Son in the same order, they will free us from all discourse against them, having carried their blasphemy to the most manifest impudence. For not even when God is called the Father of us all, is He the Father of us and of the Only-Begotten in the same way. But if, because the Lord is called "the firstborn of every creature," and "firstborn among many brethren," this instructs them unto impiety, let them learn from the Gospel that the Lord also calls those who have made themselves His own through the works of virtue His mother and His brethren. "For who," He says, "is my mother, and who are my brethren, but those who do the will of my Father which is in heaven?" So that God ^C is named our Father, not by abuse, nor by metaphor, but properly and primarily and truly, having brought us from nothing into being through bodily parents, and attaching us to Himself by His care. And if God is truly called Father of us, who have been deemed worthy of the grace of adoption, what reason will hinder Him from being called Father, by right and merit, of Him who is Son by nature and has proceeded from His substance? ^D

From the same book.

EUN. Does "light" mean something else, he says, in the ingenerate than in the generate, or is it the same for both? For if one is something else and the other something else, it is clear that what consists of one thing and another is composite; but the composite is not ingenerate. If they are the same, however, by as much as the generate differs from the ingenerate, by so much must the light differ from the light, and life from life, and power from power.

^A Basil: See and understand the horrendous impiety. "By as much," he says, "as the ingenerate differs from the generate, by as much shall light differ from light, and life from life, and power from power." Let us therefore ask him: By what measure is the ingenerate separated from the generate? Is it by some small measure, and such that they are finally able at some point to coincide with one another? Or is this absolutely impossible, and even more impossible than for the same person to be dead and alive, healthy and sick, or awake and asleep at the same time? For such are all things that are set against each other in extreme opposition, so that the presence of the one necessitates the absence of the other; things which are constituted to be absolutely non-coexistent and irreconcilable.

^B Therefore, when the ingenerate is opposed to the generate in this manner, does not he who calls the Father light, and likewise the Son light, and who says that this light differs from that light as much as the generate differs from the ingenerate—even though he feigns a more humane attitude in his speech by, of course, calling the Son light—plainly lead the opinion to the contrary by the very force of his words? For consider what is opposed to the ingenerate: is it another ingenerate, or the generate? The generate, clearly. And what is opposed to light? Is it another light, or darkness? Darkness, certainly. If, therefore, it is necessary that light should differ from light by as much as the generate differs from the ingenerate, who among all people is unaware of the impiety—that under the name of light, by introducing what is opposed to light, he implies that the substance of the Only-Begotten is contrary to the nature of light? ^C Or let him show us a light that is opposed to light, and which has that same mode of opposition that exists between the generate and the ingenerate. But if this does not exist, nor could he ever devise it, let not the art by which he profoundly adorns his blasphemy be ignored. For since he thinks that the generate is opposed to the ingenerate by way of contrariety, he applies the same opposition to light with regard to light, so that he may show the substance of the Father to be in every way contrary and hostile to the substance of the Only-Begotten. For this reason, this new sanction of doctrines exists, which says: "By as much as the generate is different from the ingenerate, by so much must the light be different from the light." ^D Yet, while there is a certain opposition between the ingenerate and the generate, in the placement of the words, if not in the nature of things, which is what these men construct; it is impossible to conceive of any contrariety between light and light, neither in expression nor in thought. But he seems to deceive himself with specious quibbles. For he thinks that the things which follow from opposites have the same conflict with one another that the principal opposites have, and that when the opposite is present in one of the contraries, the opposite must necessarily follow from the other as well. As, for instance, if sight is followed by light, then blindness is followed by darkness; or if life is followed by sensation, then death is followed by a privation of the senses. How weak and how evanescent this observation is, is clear to anyone paying even the slightest attention. For it is not the case that, because life follows from being awake, death necessarily follows from sleep. Nor does the generate relate to the ingenerate in such an opposite way. And

^A if they are opposites and destructive of one another—which would turn back upon the heads of the blasphemers—neither are they by nature hostile, nor were the consequents shown to possess the antecedents.

Therefore, either erase your words, or do not deny your impiety. For it is your own blasphemy, you who said: "As much as the generate differs from the ingenerate, by so much must the light differ from the light." Therefore, just as he who is generate will never be a participant in being ingenerate, so you will never make him a participant in the light. And the substance of the Only-Begotten will, according to your opinion, be as far from being ingenerate as it is far from being understood and named as light. But John calls out to you with the great voice of the Spirit, saying: ^B "He was the true light." Yet you have no ears to hear, nor heart to understand; but by your sophistries you drive the substance of the Only-Begotten away toward a contrary nature that cannot exist with the light. For surely you will not say that which is potent, that you have not taken away from the Only-Begotten the title of light. For piety consists not in the sound of the air, but in the power of the things signified.

But this man did not stop with these things; rather, he also joins life and power to the same measure of contrary stance, saying: "As much as the generate differs from the ingenerate, by so much must the light differ from the light, and life differ from life, and power from power." Therefore, according to you, the Only-Begotten is neither life nor power. But you write off the Lord himself, who says: ^C "I am the life"; and you write off Paul, who said: "Christ the power of God." For what was demonstrated in the preceding sections will also apply to these present ones. For no one would say that life is opposed to life, or power to power; rather, death and impotence fulfill the most perfect opposition. Which this man, concealing his treachery beneath the craftiness of his words, deeply and covertly broadcasts as a horrendous impiety, and by the arts of eloquence draws the nature of the Only-Begotten away to a contrary to the paternal nature, leaving only the commendation of the names.

What then of us? How, while confessing the Father to be ingenerate and the Son to be generate, ^D might we avoid the contrariety in their very being? What are we to say? That as the good Son is of the good Father, so the eternal light has shone forth from the ingenerate light, and the life-giving fountain has proceeded from the true Life, and the power of God has appeared from the Power-in-itself; while darkness, and death, and weakness are ranked with the prince of this world, and with the world-rulers of darkness, and with the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and with every power inimical to the divine nature—though not even these have attained any contrariety to the good by their very substance (for thus the reproach would return to the Creator), but through their own will, by the privation of the good, they have fallen into vice. For neither is it

possible, if—which is the truth—one accepts as identifying properties the begotten and the unbegotten, visible in the essence, to lead the mind toward a clear and unconfused conception of the Father and the Son, that he would avoid the danger of impiety, and he would preserve consistency in his reasoning. For properties are, as it were, certain marks and forms, which, while being considered in the essence, distinguish the common from the peculiar-characteristics, yet they do not disrupt the homogeneous nature of the essence; as, for example, the common is deity, but the properties are paternity and sonship. And from the combination of both, of the common and the peculiar, the apprehension of truth is generated within us; so that when we hear "unbegotten light," we understand the Father, and when "begotten light," we receive the conception of the Son: in that He is light, and light, there is no contrariety in Him, but in that He is begotten and unbegotten, the contrast is observed. For this is the very nature of properties: in the identity of the essence, it shows diversity, and while they themselves are often divided against each other and the properties lean toward the opposite, yet they do not tear asunder the unity of the essence. ^B Ex eodem libro. EUN. If anyone, he says, considering the thing from created beings, and from these is led to the substances—finding the Son to be a creature of the Unbegotten, and the Paraclete of the Only-Begotten, and from the superiority of the Only-Begotten, he confirms the difference in operation—he also receives the most certain proof of that diversity which is according to substance. BAS. First, therefore, how it is possible to estimate substances from created beings, I indeed do not see. For the works are indicative of power, and wisdom, and art, but not of the substance itself. And they do not even necessarily declare the entire power of the Creator; since it can happen sometimes that an artisan does not exert all his strength in acting, but often employs a more relaxed effort in the works of his art. But if he should transfer his entire power into the work, then finally it would follow that we measure his strength by the works, but it would not follow that we understand the substance, ^C whatever that may be. But if, because the divine nature is simple and uncompounded, one should deem that substance concurs with power, and that, on account of the goodness inherent in God, the entire power of the Father is altogether moved toward the generation of the Son, and again, the entire power of the Only-Begotten toward the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, so that from the Spirit the power of the Only-Begotten is contemplated, and simultaneously the substance too, and again from the Only-Begotten the power and substance of the Father are apprehended; consider what is deduced from this. For from those things by which he attempted to establish the dissimilarity of the substance, from these he is shown attempting to construct its similarity. For if power has nothing in common with substance, ^D how has he been led from the works, which are effects of power, to the comprehension of the substance itself? Conversely, if substance and power are the same: which

characterizes the power will surely characterize the substance. Therefore, the works of creation, as you say, do not lead to the dissimilarity of substance, but to the precision of likeness. Again, this very attempt confirms our position rather than his. For he has no way of providing proofs for what he has said; or, if he draws images from human things, he will find that it is not from the works of a craftsman that we arrive at an idea of his substance, but from the begotten that we recognize the nature of the begetter. For it is not possible to grasp the substance of a builder from his house; but it is easy to understand the nature of a father from his offspring. Therefore, if the Only-begotten is a creature, he does not set forth to us the substance of the Father; but if he makes the Father known to us through himself, he is not a creature, but the true Son, and the image of God, and the ^A impress of his subsistence. And these things are of this sort.

From the same, from the fourth book. If you define the "only-begotten" not from the fact that it is begotten, but from the fact that nothing can be compared to it, then the Father, to whom nothing can be compared, will also be "only-begotten." For he is incomparable.

From the same book. If the Son is not simply "the Only-begotten," but "the only-begotten Son," and is the only-begotten Son from the Father, then he is the only-begotten Son, and not an only-begotten created thing.

From the same book. If the Son is a creator by the communion and concession of the Father, and not by nature, then nothing is created by him by nature. For if he is not a creator by nature, how can the things created by him be created by nature?

From the same book. If God acts in a unique way, he also begets in a unique way; for God cannot be compared to anyone in anything.

From the same book. What is made is not from the nature of the maker. But what is begotten is from the substance of the begetter. Therefore, to make and to beget are not the same.

From the same book. What is in the form of God is in the substance of God. For the form of God is not one thing and the substance of God another, lest he be composite. Therefore, he who is equal in form is also equal in substance.

From the same book. If the Father was before the Son, he was surely the Father of some other ^D son; for without a Son, he could not be called Father.

From the same book. If he who knows the Son by nature knows the Father also—for he says, "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also" (John xiv, 7)—the Son is surely of the same substance as the Father. For nothing can be known from a dissimilar substance.

From the same book. If he who believes that Christ is the Son of God has life

eternal, it is necessary that he who does not believe it has eternal death. ^A From the same book. Those whose actions are the same, their essence is also one. But the action of the Father and of the Son is one, as is understood from these words: "Let us make man"; and from these: "What the Father does, the same also the Son does in like manner." Therefore, the essence of the Father and of the Son is one. From the same book. If the knowledge of the Father and of the Son is eternal life, it is necessary that they be of the same essence. For those things whose essences are diverse are neither grasped by the same knowledge, nor can they bestow life. From the same book. If those who say that the Son is a creature do not say this in the same way as they do of created things, why, when we say that he is begotten, do they understand it ^B as they do of begotten things? From the same book. If God does not beget, that he may not suffer change, he also does not create, that he may not labor. But if he creates without passion, much more does he beget without passion. From the same book. If the splendor of all light is begotten indeed from the light itself, yet not at any certain interval, but without time, and is perpetually together with it—for there is no light without splendor—and if the Son, who is the splendor, is not begotten at any certain interval, but from all eternity is the splendor of God and the Father, who is light. For David says: "In thy light we shall see light"; ^C and Daniel says: "And the light is with him." From the same book. If God does not beget, it happens either because he cannot or because he will not. If he cannot, besides the fact that he is weak, he yields to a begetting and perfect nature. But if he is able but does not will it, he restrains by will what he has by nature. Wherefore, even if he has never begotten, he will yet beget sometime, when he wills. From the same book. Because we say that the Son necessarily exists as the Father exists, they say: "Since, therefore, the Son is always a Creator, the creation will also always be, and thus the creation will be ^D coeternal with the Father and the Son." But not at all; for he who says "creator" does not immediately also say "creation." Neither does an edifice exist at the same time as the architect, nor a ship at the same time as he who is the builder of ships. For the creation is in the creator, but that which is created is after the creator. It is impossible to say "Father" if the Son does not exist. And he who says "Father"—he does not say "Father" simply, but Father of someone. From the same book. Again they ask whether the Son was begotten while existing or while not existing. This question is obscure and crafty. For since they are ashamed to ask whether he was begotten at some time and in time, they ask whether he was begotten while existing or while not existing. Do you, therefore, ask them in return whether God the Father begat the Son while he was already a Father, or while he was not a Father? For if he was a Father, he begat an existing one; but if he was not

a Father, he came into being, and is not a Father by nature. But the Divine Scriptures exclude all the questions of these men, since Moses testifies of the Son with a clear voice, saying, "He who is sent me." And the evangelist John says: "In the beginning was the Word," repeating that word "was" four times. And elsewhere: "He who is of God," and, "He who is in the bosom of the Father," and in another place, "He who is in heaven." And in the Apocalypse: "He who is, and who was, and who is to come." And Paul: "Who being the brightness of his glory," and, "Who being in the form of God." And again, "Who is over all, God blessed."

^A From the same book. If a cause is greater than that which is caused, and differs from it in essence, and every father is a cause, and every son is caused, fathers are greater than their sons and differ from them in essence, and are not of one essence. But this is not true.

From the same book. They ask whether the Father, who begat the Son, ceased to beget him; and if we concede that he ceased, they infer: "Therefore, he also began to beget. For everything that has an end also has a beginning. Therefore, the Son was not always." We shall say, therefore: If that which ceases necessarily has a beginning, and that which has a beginning necessarily ceases, then angels and all incorporeal things, since they have a beginning of existence, will necessarily have an end of existence as well. But this is absurd. It is possible, then, for something to have begun to exist without having ceased, and to have ceased without having begun. If not, then the Son himself, if he has a beginning of existence, of necessity has an end as well, according to them, since they insist that everything which has a beginning also has an end. And how is this not blasphemy? And yet, the foreknowledge of God, ^B which has no beginning, has an end after the coming to pass of those things which were foreseen as future. Wherefore it is clear that it is not necessary that everything which has an end should have a beginning.

From the same book, On the Unbegotten. If the Unbegotten, being distinguished from the begotten Son, is an essence; and the Uncreated, being distinguished from the creation, is an essence; then the Unbegotten will also be an essence, and the Uncreated will be an essence. Thus, then, God will be two, and not one essence. And so also his immutability, and his having-no-beginning, and many other things, will be essences.

From the same book. If one who speaks of the Father as unbegotten and the Son as begotten has declared their essences, then he who wishes to declare the mode of their existence, in what other way will he be able to speak? "Unbegotten" indicates the mode of existence, and is not a name of essence. But if those things which have a different mode of existence ^C also have a different essence, then neither are human beings of the same essence. For the existence of Adam, who was fashioned from the earth, is one; another is that of Eve, who was made from his side; another is that of Abel, for he was from union; and still another is that of the One from Mary, for he was from the Virgin alone. Understand the same, moreover, in the case of birds and four-footed animals.

From the same book.

^A If that which cannot come to be is contrary to that which can, and the unwise to the wise, and whatever is distinguished in this way is contrary to the other, the ingenite will also be contrary to the begotten. The Father, therefore, is contrary to the Son according to essence, if the ingenite is not a mode of existence, but an essence.

From the same book.

If the Son is a creature and not a begotten one, and all things that exist are creatures, the Father is vainly called ingenite, since there altogether exists no product to which he might be called ingenite. It would be more correct, then, to call him uncreated than ingenite. For if "ingenite" is a name, it is not an essence. For names are significant of essences, but are not themselves essences. But if they say the ingenite is an essence itself, let them state its name. ^B For we do not know things by their essences, but by their names and operations, especially those that are devoid of body.

From the same.

If the name "ingenite" belongs to the essence of God, either God, knowing his own essence, was ignorant of the name of the essence, or, knowing the name, he deceived his hearers. For "The Lord Almighty," he says, "is my name." And when questioned by Moses as to what his name was, he said, "I am who I am." And again, "The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, this is for me an eternal name." And David says, "The Lord is his name." Yet neither he himself nor any of the holy men have said that "ingenite" is his name. But if he neither deceived nor was ignorant — for it is impious to say any of these things — then "ingenite" is not his name.

From the same.

The ingenite is either an essence or ^C an accident, for it cannot be anything else. It is not an essence, since that which is distinguished from it and responds to it from the other side, namely the begotten, is not an essence. For the Son is called begotten, not insofar as he is an essence, but insofar as he is begotten. But if it is an accident, it is either joined by nature, or of such a kind that it can be present or absent. If it is joined by nature, it is necessary for God to be both essence and accident; for such things necessarily happen to those to whom they happen. But if it is by contingency, he will be at one time ingenite and at another time begotten.

From the same.

If "ingenite" is not the name of an essence, but is the essence itself, and the Son is also an essence, ^D then the Son is also ingenite, and every essence is ingenite.

From the same.

If to be ingenite is the essence of God, and to be begotten is the essence of the Son, his essence is neither a created thing nor a made thing. For the Son is one essence, not many.

From the same book.

If someone says "man," or "stone," or "wood," he signifies some essence. But one who says "begotten" does not signify essence simply, since every begotten thing is one essence. And if it is not of substance

^A a certain essence, the begotten does not signify it, nor does the unbegotten.

*From the same.*

If by nature the Father is unbegotten, by nature the Son is also begotten. And if he is begotten by nature, he is not a creature. But since he is begotten by nature, it is necessary that he who begot also exists. For a begotten thing could not exist without a begetter. Let them say, then, who the begetter is, if the Father did not beget.

*From the same.*

If, they say, the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and the Father is unbegotten, but the Son is begotten, then the same essence is both unbegotten and begotten. But we do not say that the Son is a part of the Father, so that the essence is divided into unbegotten and begotten, but rather we say whole from whole, begotten from unbegotten; so that there are two perfect ones, and not two parts from some one thing.

*From the same.*

If the Son revealed the name of the Father to men, as he himself says, "I have manifested thy name to men," and the proper name of his essence is "unbegotten," let them show where the Savior has called himself the Unbegotten.

*From the same.*

"Unbegotten" is neither a definition of God, nor a property. For these terms are convertible with those of which they are the definition or property, and they respond to them reciprocally. For man is an animal, rational, mortal; ^B and whatever is a rational, mortal animal, that is man. And the property of man is to be capable of laughing; and if anything is capable of laughing, it is man. But regarding "unbegotten," if someone should concede that it is said of God alone, it does not immediately follow that if something is God, it is unbegotten. For the Son, though he is God, is not unbegotten. Therefore, "unbegotten" is neither a definition nor a property; for they are not convertible.

*From the same.*

If the Son is a creature of God, and every creature is a slave to the Creator, then Christ is a slave, and not the Son of God. Therefore he did not take the form of a slave, being the Lord, but rather he was a slave.

*From the same.*

If lesser things are created by a lesser creator, and greater things by a greater one, then creation is through many, since it is not all equal.

*From the same.*

If God is by nature a creator, he will not be creator of one thing, but of many. For otherwise, it is out of weakness that he does not create another thing, or out of envy and malice.

*From the same.*

If God was ashamed ^C to create the totality of existing creation by himself, then he does not admit its praise either. For what he would be ashamed to make, he would not wish to be attributed to himself as his own.

*From the same.*

If, for God, creating and begetting are the same, since ^D

saving and destroying, and bringing to life and killing are simply the same, then if this is so, salvation and perdition, and life and death, would be the same. ^A *From the same.* If Christ is the power of God and [his] wisdom, and these are uncreated and co-eternal with God—for there was never a time when [God] was without wisdom and without power—then Christ is uncreated and co-eternal with God. But if, in as much as they are energies, it is said that they are the power and wisdom of God, then we likewise might be called the power and wisdom of Christ, just as He is of God. But that is absurd. *From the same.* If the Son is not the eternal God, he is by necessity recent. If he is not true, he is false. If he is not [God] by nature, he is by appointment. But it is impious to worship new, false, and non-natural gods: "There shall not be to you," he says, "a recent god." And Paul: "But then, indeed, you served them which by nature were not gods." ^B *From the same.* If the Son is the Only-begotten because he alone was made by the Only [Father], why is he not more properly called "uni-created," since Eunomius does not truly call him a creature, while being falsely called begotten? *From the same.* If the Son is like the Father, yet not in nature, then it is either in form or in energy. It cannot be said in form, for things that do not have a body do not have a form. But if it is in energy, it is not changeable. For such as he is himself, such is the energy he produces, if indeed he is a thing made by the Father and not begotten. And furthermore, it has been said before that what is similar in energy must of necessity also be similar in essence. ^C *From the same.* If the works of God, as David says, consist in faith and not in demonstration—for he says, "And all his work [is] in faith"—how much more is the generation of the Son, which is before the ages, perceived in faith and not in demonstration? *From the same.* If God made the Son out of nothing, and the Son likewise made all things out of nothing, the power and energy are the same for those who are able to create what they will out of nothing, with no difference whatsoever being observed among the things created. For although there is a manifold variety in the universe of things, the creators are not various, but one, namely the Son, through whom all things were made. But those whose power and energy is one, have, ^D as we have said, one essence and nature also. *From the same.* If our faith in the Son is the work of God—for "This," he says, "is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he sent"—the Son cannot [himself] be the work of God. For faith in the Son, and the Son himself, are not the same thing. *From the same.* If the Son, in as much as he is God, is to be subject to the Father, he would have been subject from the beginning, from the time he was God. But if he is not >

^A subject, but later will be subject, as a man, and not as God, for himself.

*From the same.* If after the incarnation, on account of the obedience, God gave to the Son who is God the name which is above every name, and every tongue confessed him to be Lord, then before the incarnation he did not have the name which is above every name, nor did all confess him to be Lord. He became greater, therefore, after the incarnation than he was before the incarnation; which is absurd. Such also is this: "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." One must understand these things, therefore, in regard to the incarnation, and not in regard to the divinity.

*From the same.* If the Son is the maker of all things, he is not ignorant of the time of the judgment, which he himself made. For he did not say he was ignorant of the judgment, but of the time; and how is this not absurd?

*From the same.* If the Son does not have the knowledge of all things that the Father has, he lied when he said: "All things that the Father has, are mine," and, "As the Father knows me, so I also know the Father." But if to know the Father is one thing, and to know the things of the Father is another, and it is greater to know the Father than to know the things of the Father, and in so far as each is greater than his own, the Son is greater than the Father. For he says, no one knows the Father except the Son, and he is ignorant of the ^B lesser, which is impossible. Therefore, because it was not advantageous for men to hear the time of the judgment, he withheld it. For the hope of a later time always makes those zealous for piety more diligent; but if they knew that the interval of time would be long, they might be rendered more negligent, being able to repent later more easily. For how is it possible that he who knows all things up to that hour, does not know that hour? But, moreover, the Apostle said, "In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

*From the same.* If the Son lives because of the Father, he lives because of another, and not because of himself. But he who lives because of another is not life itself; and because he is holy through another, he is not holiness itself. The Son lied, therefore, saying, "I am the life," and again, "So also the Son gives life to whom he wills." Therefore one must understand these things in regard to the incarnation, and not in regard to the divinity.

*From the same.* He says, "I am the vine," and we are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman. But the branches are of the same nature as the vine, yet the vine is not of the same nature as the husbandman; for we are of the same nature as the Father, but He is altogether alien in all things. To whom we will reply: He has not called us branches of his divinity, but of his flesh. ^C

CAP. XXVII. On the Monophysites. From the book of Anastasius the Sinaite, called "The Guide."

Further against those who assert one nature in Christ, from the book of the monk Anastasius the Sinaite, which is entitled "The Guide." ^D Severus, bishop of Antioch, expelled from there, came to Alexandria, and composed a book full of every blasphemy, which runs down the Council of Chalcedon and establishes the dogma which says that Christ became one nature after the union. This book, which he himself called "Philalethes," the Severians and Jacobites, and those from Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Theodosius and Timothy, and the remaining Monophysites in Syria and Egypt, honor more than the Gospels. It is not, therefore, to be debated with such Monophysites until they define what is nature, and what is essence, and what is person, and what is hypostasis. For because Christ is one person, they say that he is also one nature on account of the one hypostasis, contending that person and nature are the same. Let them be asked, therefore, when some man dies, did the nature die, or the person? But they would never say the nature. Therefore, nature and person are not the same. And again, since there are many and innumerable persons of men, would many and innumerable natures of men be said to be? But indeed, one is the nature of them. So that person and nature are not the same.

*From the same.* The Monophysites say that the great Athanasius wrote to the Emperor Jovian that the Word became flesh, so that the flesh might also become Word. To whom we contradict, saying that, first of all, it is unclear whether this statement belongs to the great Athanasius, since in many places...

^A they say that he has said so. Just as the Apostle says: "We are the body of Christ, and members in part." And again: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" And in another place: "As is the man of dust, so also are those who are of dust; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the heavenly man."

From the same. If the Son was speaking about Himself, saying, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me," He was not only declaring His own fear and weakness, but He also thought that something was impossible for the Father. For the words "if it is possible" belong to one who is in doubt. He did not, therefore, make this request speaking for His own sake, but for the sake of those who were about to kill Him, hoping that they would not commit such a crime, for whom, even when raised upon the cross, He prayed, saying, "Father, forgive them."

From the same. If Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ, but man is not of the same essence as God (for he is not God), while Christ is of the same essence as God (for He is God), then Christ is not the head of man in the same way as God is the head of Christ. ^B For created nature and divinity do not meet in one and the same identity. Therefore, God, as Father, is the head of Christ, but Christ, as Creator, is the head of man.

From the same. If He were asking as God, and not as man, when He said, "Glorify me, Father," He would not have possessed that for which He was asking. And the evangelist, who said, "We have seen His glory," would be lying; and the Apostle, saying, "They would not have crucified the Lord of glory"; and David, saying, "And the King of glory shall enter in." He was not, therefore, asking for an addition of glory, but for the manifestation of the economy to be revealed.

From the same. ^C If He were truly begging from the Father the glory which He had before the world was made, He would not have been seeking what He already possessed. And if this were the case, He would have lost not only the glory, but also the divinity. For glory cannot be separated from divinity. Therefore, as Photius thought, He would have been a mere man. It is evident, then, that He said such things in accordance with the economy of His humanity, and not due to any lack of divinity.

From the same. ^D If the fact that He is called "the firstborn of all creation" indicates that He was created first, then the Apostle, who said that "all things were created through Him and for Him," should have said that He Himself was created before all things. But instead, he said: "He is before all things." By this, he declared that He always exists, and that the totality of things was created. For that is consistent with the words: "In the beginning was the Word."

^A From the same. If the Son, they say, is the firstborn, He is not the only-begotten, but there must be someone else for whom He is called firstborn. And yet, O wise man, even though He was born alone of the Virgin Mary, He is called her firstborn. For it says: "Until she had brought forth her son, the firstborn." Thus, it is not necessary that there be a brother for Him to be called firstborn. It may be said that He was also called firstborn before all creation. Furthermore, He is called firstborn because of those who are born of God through the adoption of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren."

From the same. If, when living in the flesh, He said: "I am the way," and the same One said: "No one comes to the Father except through me," He is also the same One who said: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways." Now, the terms "creature" and "work" are also used regarding offspring, as in: "I have gotten a man through God," and again: "He made sons and daughters." And David says: "Create in me a clean heart, O God," not asking for a different one, but clearly for the heart that already existed to be purified. And "new creature" is spoken of, not as if another creature had come into existence, but with regard to those who are enlightened and prepared for better works.

^B From the same. If the Father created the Son for works, and that which is for the sake of another—and not for itself—is either a part of him or lesser than that for whose sake it is made, then the Savior is either a part of creation or lesser than it. It is necessary, therefore, to understand this with regard to His humanity. Someone might say that Solomon in that passage meant that Wisdom of whom Paul makes mention, saying: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom did not know God." Besides, he who spoke thus was not a prophet, but a writer of proverbs; and proverbs are images of other things, and not the things themselves.

^C From the same. If it were the Son of God who said, "The Lord created me," He would rather have said, "The Father created me." For He never calls Him His Lord, but always Father. We must, therefore, accept "He begot" regarding the Son of God, and "He created" regarding the form of a servant. In all these instances, we do not say there are two—God separately and man separately, for He was one—but we consider the nature of each by mental distinction. For neither did Peter perceive two when he said: "Christ therefore having suffered for us in the flesh."

^D From the same. If the Son, they say, is begotten and not a made thing, how does Scripture say: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made Him both Lord and Christ"? It must be said here also concerning that—

^A birth from Mary that it is spoken of according to the flesh. Just as the angel also, when bringing the good news to the shepherds, says: "There is born to you this day a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." For the word "today" could not be thought of as applying to Him who is before the ages. And the text which follows shows this more clearly, saying: "This same Jesus, whom you crucified."

*From the same.*

If when the Son was born, then wisdom came into being, false is that which says: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." For the wisdom of God did not come into being, but always was. To "come into being," therefore, is said even of the Father, as by David: "Be to me a protecting God." And Paul: "But let God be true, ^B though every man a liar." So also the Lord was made "for us wisdom from God, and sanctification, and redemption." If, therefore, the Father, having become a protector and true, is not a created thing or a thing brought into being, neither is the Son, having become wisdom and sanctification, to be understood as a created thing.

*From the same.*

If that is true, "One God the Father," it is true also that "One Lord Jesus Christ the Savior." Therefore, according to them, neither is the Savior God, nor the Father Lord, and in vain was it said: "The Lord said to my Lord." And false is that which says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you," and "The Lord rained from the Lord," and "God made man to the image of God," and "What god is there except the Lord?" and "What god is there except our God?" And that of John: "And the Word was with ^C God, and the Word was God." And that of Thomas concerning the Son: "My Lord and my God." Therefore, it is necessary to conceive of the distinctions among produced things and false gods—those who are improperly called gods—and not between the Father and the Son. The true is spoken of in distinction to the false; but He who is incomparable to all things excels in all things.

*From the same, from the letter to Maximus the philosopher.*

I, for my part, if it is permitted to say what I think, believe that that expression "like" (*homoion*), if it is accepted in such a way that it admits of no diversity, is to be approved and accepted. For it concurs with that other expression, if its sound opinion is grasped, so that it signifies being of the same essence, or consubstantial, just as the Fathers gathered at Nicaea, understanding "light from light" and "true God from true God," and the like, ^D while calling the Only-begotten such, fittingly brought in the "consubstantial." For it is not possible to conceive of any difference between light and light, nor between truth and truth, nor between the essence of the Only-begotten and that of the Father. If anyone, therefore, accepts the expression in this way, as I say, I welcome it. But if anyone separates from "like" that lack of difference—which those who gathered at Constantinople have done—I suspect the term, as one that diminishes the glory of the Only-begotten. For indeed, even with faint resemblances, and [often] by [falling short] of the archetypes...

we are wont to use the term "similar." Since, therefore, I believe there is less room for mischief in the term "consubstantial," I for my part welcome and approve it more.

From the same, from his letter to the canons.

^B In both respects we possess the same attitude concerning the faith, since we are heirs of those same Fathers who once proclaimed at Nicaea the great preaching of piety. The rest of its parts are entirely free from calumny, but there are some who have not yet accepted the term "consubstantial," because it was misunderstood by a few—whom one might justly blame, yet also consider worthy of some indulgence. For not to follow the Fathers, and to set one’s own opinion above their utterance, is worthy of accusation, as it is full of arrogance. On the other hand, to hold the term in suspicion because it has been slandered by others seems ^C in some way to afford them a moderate pardon for their excuse. For in truth, those who had gathered regarding the case of Paul of Samosata condemned the expression as sounding poorly. For they said that the word "consubstantial" presents the notion of a substance and of those things derived from it; so that the substance, being divided, grants the title of "consubstantial" to those things into which it has been divided. Now, this conception has some ground in the case of bronze and the coins minted from it; but in the case of God the Father and God the Son, no substance is considered to be older or superior to both—for ^D to think or to say this exceeds every measure of impiety. For what could be older than the Unbegotten? Moreover, by this blasphemy the faith in the Father and the Son is also destroyed; for those things which subsist from one have the relationship of brothers to one another.

And because there were those who were saying at that time that the Son was brought into being out of nothing, they used the term "consubstantial" so as to also cut away this impiety. For the union of the Son with the Father is timeless and inseparable. The preceding words also demonstrate that this was the intention of those men. For after saying "light from light," and that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father, and not made, they added "consubstantial" to these things, pointing out that whatever account of light one might provide in the case of the Father, this will also fittingly apply in the case of the Son. For true light with true light, according to the very notion of light, will have no difference. Since, therefore, [554, B] the Father is light without beginning, and the Son is begotten light, and both are light, they rightly said "consubstantial," in order to set forth the equal dignity of their nature. For things that have the relationship of brothers to one another are not called "consubstantial," as some have supposed, but when both the cause and that which has its existence from the cause are of the same nature, they are called "consubstantial."

Moreover, this term also corrects the evil of Sabellius; for it destroys the identity of the hypostasis and introduces the perfect notion of the persons. For nothing is "consubstantial" with itself, but...

one to the other; wherefore it is admirably and piously defined, ^A both defining the property of the hypostases and manifesting the sameness of nature without any distinction. But when we are taught that the Son is from the substance of the Father, and that He is begotten, not made, let us not lapse into carnal thoughts of passions. For the substance was not divided from the Father into the Son; nor did He beget by flowing, nor by putting forth, as trees produce fruit; but the mode of the divine generation is ineffable and incomprehensible to the thoughts of men. For it is truly of a humble and carnal mind to liken eternal things to those that are perishable and temporal, and to suppose that God begets in the same way as corporeal beings.

From the same, from the letter to Eustathius the Armenian, against certain persons who appeared to favor the opinions of the Arians.

It is necessary, therefore, that they openly confess that they believe ^B according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicaea, provided, however, that the sound meaning of those words is accepted. For there are some even within this faith who distort the speech of truth and draw the sense of those words to the confirmation of their own opinion. Since Marcellus, thinking impiously concerning the person of our Lord Jesus Christ and preaching Him to be purely the Word, dared to say that he was moved to think this way because of that term—the meaning of which he misunderstood. And those who defend the impiety of Sabellius the Libyan, considering person and essence to be the same, pretend that they are compelled to confirm this because it is written in that faith: ^C "If any man say that the Son is from another essence or hypostasis, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes him." Yet those Fathers did not say that essence and hypostasis are the same; for if these two terms had one and the same meaning, there would have been no need to use both. Since, however, some denied that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and others said that He consists not from the essence, but from some other hypostasis, in order to reject both these opinions as false, they employed both these terms. For where they declared their own opinion, they said the Son is from the essence of the Father, and there they did not add that other term, hypostasis, which, just as it was employed to condemn a depraved opinion, so it was sufficient ^D to pronounce "essence" alone to explain the mind of the Fathers. It is necessary, therefore, to confess the Son to be *homoousios*, that is, of the same essence or consubstantial with the Father, as it is written; and to confess, furthermore, the Father in His own person, and the Son in His own, and the Holy Spirit in His own, as they themselves have clearly handed down. For they sufficiently and clearly indicated this by saying: "Light from light," that the light which begets is one thing, and the light which is begotten is another—yet light is light—so that one and the same is the reason of the essence.

From the same, from the sixth chapter of the work to Amphilochius.

Not with the Father, they say, but after the Father is

^A honor to be rendered to the Son. Wherefore it is consonant that, through Him, honor be rendered to the Father, but not with Him. For "with Him" denotes equal dignity, but "through whom" indicates the ministry. Nor, they say, is the Spirit to be placed with the Father and the Son, but under the Son and the Father, not coordinated, but subordinated, nor numbered together, but counted after. And with such artifices of terminology they pervert the simple and unadorned nature of the faith. To whom it must be answered: as for us, when we contemplate the magnitude of the nature of the Only-Begotten and the excellence of His dignity, we testify that the glory belongs to Him with the Father and together with the Father; but when we consider the bestowal of good things made to us and our reconciliation and conjunction with God, we acknowledge that this grace is performed for us through Him and in Him. ^B

Item against the Arians and Eunomians, from the first oration of the great Gregory the Theologian on the Son.

How then is this generation immune from passion? Because it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation has passion conjoined with it, the incorporeal manner of generating will certainly be devoid of passion. And I, in turn, will ask you: How is He God, if He is a creature? For that which is created cannot be God; not to mention that even here there is passion, if it be taken in a corporeal way, such as time, desire, formation, anxious care, hope, sorrow, danger, failure, correction—all of which, and more than these, everyone knows easily to happen to a creature. But I marvel that you do not dare even so far as to imagine certain combinations, and times of gestation, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have generated in any other way if He had not generated thus; or, again, that you should enumerate the generations of certain birds and of other animals which dwell on land or in the waters, and subject the divine and ineffable [generation] to any of these, or even remove the Son from the midst by this new hypothesis. And you cannot perceive this either: that for whom the carnal generation is different (for in some place among men you have known the Theotokos Virgin), for this one also the spiritual generation is different—or rather, for whom the existence is not the same, for him the manner of generating is also different. ^D Who, therefore, is the Father who is without beginning? He, indeed, whose origin of existence cannot be found at all. But he who at some time began to be, this one also had a beginning of his fatherhood. Therefore, the Father did not exist afterward, since He did not even begin to be; and He is Father properly, because He is not also Son; just as, in turn, the Son is properly Son, because He is not also Father. For as regards us, we cannot be properly called by either name, since we are both; and not one more so than the other; and we are not born from one, but from both parents, and therefore we are divided, and gradually become humans; or perhaps not even humans—and such as we did not wish—sometimes letting go, sometimes being let go, so that only the relations remain to the things themselves.

^A Or perhaps you will cite Scripture against us, as distorting some part of Scripture and the truth? But is it not evident to all that many things spoken in a temporal sense are presented with exchanged tenses, especially according to the custom of divine Scripture? This is true not only of things of the past or present, but also of things of the future, as in, “Why did the nations rage?” (for they had not yet raged); ^B or, “In the river they shall pass over on foot,” which means they have passed over. It would be a long task to enumerate all such expressions, which have been noted by the diligent.

From the same oration

^C This objection of theirs stands in this way. Now, how is that other argument of theirs—one of much contentiousness and impudence? “Willingly,” they say, “He begat the Son, or unwillingly.” Then they fasten their adversaries on both sides with knots—as they themselves think—which are not firm, but actually very weak. “For if unwillingly,” they say, “then force was applied to Him.” And who is it that applied force? And again, how can He to whom force is applied be God? “But if willingly, then the Son is a son of the will. In what way, therefore, is He begotten from the Father?” And so they conjure up a certain new mother, the will, in place of the Father. Now, one pleasant thing about their argument is this: if they say this, they are departing from that passion they so strongly urged, for the will is not a passion. ^D Secondly, let us look at the strength of their position, whatever it may be; but it would be best to first entangle them further. Do you yourself, whoever you are, who rashly spout whatever your whim suggests, reply: were you procreated from your father willingly or unwillingly? If from an unwilling one, then force was applied to him. O what an outrage! And who applied force to him? You certainly will not say it was his nature, for that also has its own integrity. But if from a willing father, your father is lost to you for the sake of a few syllables; for you have appeared as a son of the will, and not of the father. But I go on to God and the creatures, and apply your own question to your wisdom: Did God create this whole mass of things willingly or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here too force has been applied, and there is someone who applied force. But if willingly, then both other creatures and you, above all who think up such reasonings and such verbal traps, are robbed of God. For they will be separated from the Creator by the intermediate will. But truly, if I am not mistaken, there is one thing that is "willing" and another that is "will"; one that is "begetting" and another that is "generation"; one that "speaks" and another that is "the word," unless perhaps we are drunk. For of these, the one is the mover, the other is as it were the motion itself. Therefore, the object of the will does not belong to the will (for this does not absolutely follow); nor does the begotten belong to generation, nor the heard to speech, but to the one willing, and the one begetting, and the one speaking. But the things considered in God are above even all these.

TITLE XIX. Against the Agnoetae, who say that the Son, as lesser than the Father, is ignorant of the day and hour of the universal consummation. By the Great Basil.

If the Son does not possess the knowledge of all things which the Father has, He lied in saying: "All things that the Father has are mine." And: "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father." But if it is one thing for the Father to be known, and another to know the things of the Father, and it is greater to know the Father than the things that are His—inasmuch as each person is greater than what belongs to himself—then, in knowing the greater, the Son would have been ignorant of the lesser: "For no one," He says, "knows the Father except the Son." Such a thing is impossible. Therefore, because it was not to the advantage of men to hear the time of the judgment, He held His peace. For the expectation that it is always near makes men more zealous for piety; but the knowledge that a long period of time would intervene would have made them more negligent, in the hope that, by changing later, they might still be saved. For how could He who knows all things up to that very hour not know that hour as well? Moreover, Paul would have spoken in vain: "In whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden." Thus, such ignorance must be attributed to the nature of His humanity.

TITLE XX. Against Origen, who dogmatized that the first-created man was created incorporeal before the transgression, and that after the fall he was clothed in garments of skin, that is to say, flesh; and that the soul pre-exists the body, and the same soul is reclothed in many bodies; and that the punishments after the general resurrection have an end; and that the demons will return again to their previous order; and that sinful men will be justified; and that the bodies of the dead will not rise; and that the kingdom of Christ will one day cease; and who prattled other things.

If the first-created man was incorporeal before the transgression, how did he say, upon seeing the woman brought to him: "This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh"? For behold, clearly before the transgression he appears to have possessed both bones and flesh. The Theologian Gregory, knowing this, says: "And he is clothed in garments of skin," perhaps [meaning] the coarser flesh, and the mortal one, and the one which is an antitype, teaching that he did indeed have flesh also before, but one that was thinner, placed between immortality and mortality, and softer; he tempered his statement through the word "perhaps." If soul and body are among those things related to something—for the soul is the soul of the body, and the body is the body of the soul—and things related to something exist together, neither one existing before or after the other. If there is no pre-existence or post-existence in the case of soul and body, then neither will there be a transmigration of the one soul into other bodies. These are Pythagorean trifles, and alien to all of Holy Scripture.

^A It is a great thing for you to know that He has been begotten. But how He has been begotten, I would not concede even to the angels themselves to understand, much less to you. Do you wish that I declare how? As the Father, who begot, knows, and the Son, who is begotten. That which is above these things is covered by a cloud and escapes the dullness of your mind.

But they proceed to quibble. Did the Father beget one who was already existing, or one not existing? O, futile trifles! For these things apply to me and to you, who were partially in existence—as was that Levi in the loins of Abraham—and were partially brought forth; and hence we are partially from things that are, and partially from things that are not; contrary to what happens in that primordial matter, which was undoubtedly created out of what was not, however some may feign it to be eternal. But here, generation concurs with the very essence, and has existed from the beginning. Where, then, will you place that two-edged and slippery argument of yours? For what can be older than that which was from the beginning, so that you might locate time there, in which the Son was—or in which He was not? For in either way, that "from the beginning" will be dissolved and overturned. Unless, perhaps, the Father also, when we question you in turn whether He is from things that are or from things that are not, will be in danger of being twofold—the one pre-existing, the other existing—or surely, because of your playful questions and houses built from sand which cannot resist even light winds, the same thing will happen to Him as to the Son, that is, that He is from what is not.

I, for my part, admit neither of these, and I say that this question of yours has much absurdity but no difficulty. But if you think, according to your dialectical opinions, that one or the other of the disjunctions must be true in every argument, receive from me a small question: Is time in time, or not? If it is in time, for how long? And what is it that exists beyond this? And how is it contained? But if it is not in time, what is this remarkable wisdom, to introduce time that is devoid of time? Come now, concerning this statement: “Now I am lying,” give the other alternative, either that it is only true, or that it is false; for we will not grant both. But it cannot be so. For either the one lying will speak the truth, or the one speaking the truth will lie; this is necessary by all means. What wonder is it, then, if just as contraries meet here, so also in that other case both might be false, and thus your "wise" argument might appear to you a foolish one? ^B And I would like you to solve this riddle for me also: Were you present to yourself when you were begotten? Are you present to yourself even now? Or neither? For if you were present, and are present, have you been created? But if you are neither of these things which we have mentioned, what is the cause of this? But it is inept, you will say, to inquire curiously when discussing one's self, whether one is present to oneself or not. For these things are said of others, not of one's self. Believe me, it is more inept to call into question that which has been begotten from the beginning, whether it was or was not before its generation. For this kind of discourse concerns those things which can be divided by time.

^C But they say, the unbegotten and the begotten are not the same; and therefore, the Son is not the same as the Father. What need is there to say that by this argument either the Father or the Son is clearly removed from divinity? For if the unbegotten is the essence of God, ^D and the begotten is not the essence—and it is evident that this argument casts out either the Son or the Father from the Godhead—what must one say?

^A Choose then between these two impieties, whichever you wish, O novel theologian, if indeed you are altogether intent on embracing an impious doctrine. Next, why do you not say that the unbegotten and the begotten are the same? If by this you mean that which is not created and that which is created, I myself also accept it; for that which is without beginning and that which is being created are not the same in nature. But if you do not say that the one who has begotten and the one who has been begotten are the same, you do not speak rightly. For there is an absolute necessity that they be the same; for this is the nature of the begetter and of the begotten, that the offspring ^B is the same in nature as the one who has begotten it. Or let us proceed again in this way: How do you speak of the unbegotten and the begotten? If you mean the property itself of unbegottenness and of generation, they are not the same. But if you mean the subjects in whom these things exist, why are they not the same? For even the unwise and the wise are not the same as one another, yet they are considered with respect to one and the same man; and they do not divide the substances, but are divided with respect to the same substance. What of the fact that immortality, and innocence, and immutability are not the essence of God? But if this is so, there will be many essences of God, and not one; or else the divine is composite of these—for these cannot exist without composition if they are essences. ^C

These things, indeed, they do not say, for these are common to others also. But that which belongs to God alone and pertains to Him peculiarly, this they say is [His] essence. Yet those who have introduced both matter and form as unbegotten would not concede that the unbegotten belongs to God alone. For we must cast the darkness of the Manichaeans still further away. But let it be that the unbegotten belongs to God alone. What of Adam? Is he not the only one created by God? Certainly, you will say. Is he therefore the only man? By no means. Why so? Because the creation is not humanity; for the one who has been begotten is also a man. In the same way, the unbegotten is also not the only God, even if it is of the Father alone. Rather, admit also that the begotten is God; for He is from God, however much you may favor the unbegotten. ^D Next, how can you call it the essence of God, not as a positing of what is, but as a subtraction of what is not? For the term "unbegotten" signifies being void of generation, but it does not declare what that which lacks generation is by its nature. What then is the essence of God? It is for your own madness to say this, you who excessively scrutinize even generation itself; but for us it will be abundantly great and ample if we might learn this later on, when this darkness and thickness have been dissolved for us, as He who does not lie has promised 1. Let this, then, be understood and hoped for by those who are purifying themselves for this. We, however, shall be bold enough to say this much: that even if it is a great thing for the Father to have His origin from nothing, it is no less an illustrious thing for the Son to have proceeded from such a Father. For He is not only a partaker in the glory of Him who has no cause, because He is from the causeless One, but the mystery of His generation is also added, a thing so great and so venerable to those who are not altogether groveling on the ground and possessed of a coarse mind.

^A But if the Son is the same as the Father in essence, they say, and the Father is unbegotten, then the Son will also be unbegotten. This would be correct if *unbegotten* were the essence of God, so that there would be a certain new mixture, a begotten-unbegotten one. But if the difference concerns essence, why do you cite this as if it were something strong? Or are you yourself the father of your father, so that you lack nothing of your father, because you are the same as he in essence? Or is it not clear that, while the characteristic property remains unchanged, we must seek what the essence of God is, if indeed it is to be sought at all?

That *unbegotten* and *God* are not the same, you may learn from this: if they were the same, it would necessarily follow, since God is God of some things, that *unbegotten* would also be of some things; or, since *unbegotten* is not of anything, that God would not be of anything; for things that are entirely the same are also expressed in the same way. But clearly *unbegotten* is not of some things—whose, indeed?—while God is God of some things—of all things, in fact. How then could God and *unbegotten* be the same?

And again, since *unbegotten* and *begotten* are opposed to each other as habit and privation, it would necessarily follow that the substances themselves are opposed to each other, which no one would grant. Or again, since habits are prior to privations, and privations extinguish the habits themselves, not only would the essence of the Son be older than that of the Father, but also, according to your hypotheses, it would be extinguished by the Father and taken out of the way.

^B What further remains now of these inevitable, as they think them, arguments of theirs? Perhaps they will flee to this last one: "If God has not put an end to begetting, the generation is imperfect." And when will it end? But if He has ceased begetting, it certainly also began. Again, these carnal men, attached to bodily things, bring forward bodily reasonings. I, for my part, answer thus: whether the Son’s being born is eternal or not, I do not yet say, until I have examined more accurately that saying of Scripture: *Before all the hills He begets me*. But I do not see how this argument of theirs is necessary. For if, as they say, that which is to have an end has at some time begun, then certainly that which is not to have an end has not begun.

What, therefore, will they pronounce concerning the soul or the angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; but if it is to be without an end, then, according to them, it is certain that it was also without a beginning. Yet it did have a beginning, and it will never cease to exist. False, therefore, is their claim that that which is to have an end must also have had a beginning. ^C Indeed, our doctrine is this: just as the definition of a horse, an ox, a man, and of each of those things which fall under the same species is one, and whatever partakes of this definition is also called [that thing] *properly*, while whatever does not partake of it is either not so called or is called so *improperly*; so too there is one essence, nature, and appellation of God, even if, through certain distinct concepts, the names are also distinguished together. Thus, whatever is said *properly*, that also *is* God; and whatever is so *by nature*, that also is *truly* called so—if indeed our truth exists not in names, but in realities. But they, as if fearing lest they should move everything against the truth, confess that the Son is God when they are forced by reason and testimonies, yet [they call Him] a homonym and one who shares only in the naming. ^D

^A When we cast this objection back at them: “What then? Is the Son not properly God, just as the thing painted is not truly an animal?”—for how is He God, if He is not properly God?—“Why,” they reply, “does that prevent these from being homonyms, and both from being spoken of properly?” And they present to us the land dog and the sea dog, both of which are called by the same name and are said to be so properly. (For there is indeed a certain kind of homonym of this sort, and anything else which uses the same appellation and participates in it equally, while remaining distinct in nature.) But there, my good sir, in placing two natures under the same appellation, you introduce neither one as superior to the other, nor one as prior and the other as subsequent, nor finally one as being “more” or “less” of that which it is said to be. For there is nothing conjoined to them that imposes this necessity upon them. For neither is this dog more of a dog than that one, for example, the sea dog than the land dog, or the land dog conversely than the sea dog; for why, or upon what principle? But in things that are distinct yet endowed with equal honor, the appellation is shared.

Here, however, when you join to God that which is worshipful and above every substance and nature—which is yours alone, O God, and is as it were the nature of divinity—and then attribute this to the Father while stripping it from the Son and subjecting Him, assigning to Him the secondary parts of honor and adoration, even if you grant to Him the equality in the syllables [of a name], you cut away the divinity in reality, and you craftily move from this kind of homonymy—which embraces equality—to that kind which does not connect equal things at all. ^B And so, the man painted and the living man come closer to shadowing forth the divinity than the dogs which you proposed for the sake of an example. Otherwise, grant to both, as you do the common name, so also an equal dignity of nature, even if you introduce them as distinct; and thus you will have destroyed those dogs of yours which you devised to prove the inequality of the Father and the Son. For what fruit is there of homonymy if those who are divided by you are equal in dignity? For you did not take refuge in that homonymy in order to show them as equal in honor, but as disparate. In what way could anyone be more convicted of fighting both against himself and against the divinity?

^D Now, if when we say that the Father is greater than the Son in regard to the cause, they assume this proposition: “But the cause is nature,” and then subjoin this conclusion: “Therefore, He is greater in nature,” I do not know whether they are deceiving themselves more, or those with whom they are disputing. For not simply are all things that are said of something also said of that which is subject to it; but it is clear of what, and of whom, they are said. Otherwise, what prevents me, having made this proposal—that “The Father is greater in nature”—and then assuming the [further] premise, “But that which is by nature is not altogether greater, nor is the Father,” from concluding from this: “The greater is not altogether greater;

or, the Father is not altogether the Father.” If you desire it, I will proceed along this line: “God is essence; essence is not altogether God;” from which, according to your own conclusion: “Therefore, God is not altogether God.” But, if I am not mistaken, this argument proceeds fallaciously from that which is said according to a certain relation to that which is said absolutely—a practice habitual and familiar to those who pursue this art. For when we attribute this term, “greater,” to the ^A nature of the cause, they infer that the cause is greater than the nature. This is just the same as if, when we said, “This man is dead,” they were to infer, “Therefore, he is a man.”

How, then, shall we pass over this, which is surely no less worthy of admiration than what was said above? The Father, they say, is a name either of essence or of action; for they thinkus so hemmed in on both sides that we can by no means escape from their shackles. For if we should say it is a name of essence, we shall consent, as they suppose, to the Son having a different essence from the Father, since there is one essence of God, which the Father, as they believe, has already occupied. But if it is of action, we shall admit that He is a created thing, and not begotten. ^B For where there is an agent, there it is also necessary that that which is acted upon exists. And they will say that they marvel how that which is made can be the same as the Maker. This distinction of yours would have troubled me vehemently, too, if one of the two had necessarily to be admitted, and if it were not rather permitted—avoiding both parts of the disjunction—to state something third that is truer. For the name “Father,” O most acute men, is not a name of essence, nor of action, but it indicates the relation which the Father has toward the Son, or the Son toward the Father. For just as with us these names declare a certain genuine union and kinship, in the same way, they signify that the Begetter and the Begotten have the same nature there as well. But let it be, for your sake, that Father is a name of essence: it will indeed introduce the Son at the same time, but it will not remove and alienate Him, as both common notions and the force and power of these names themselves declare. Let it also be a name of action, if it so seems: not even thus will you gain your case. For in the same way, we shall say that the Father did this very thing, that the Son might be consubstantial with Him, even if the opinion of such an action is not otherwise devoid of absurdity. Do you see how, however ^C wickedly and maliciously you endeavor to fight, we nevertheless escape your sophistries? But since we have recognized that invincible strength of yours in reasonings and subtleties, let us now see what power you have in the divine oracles, if, indeed, you do not deem it burdensome to persuade us of your dogma from this source as well.

We, indeed, have perceived and proclaim the divinity of the Son from the great and lofty utterances. From which ones, pray? From these, naturally: God, Word, which was in the beginning, and with the beginning, and is the beginning; as in these passages: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*; and, *With thee is the beginning*; and, *Who calleth it from the generations, the beginning*. In addition to this, the Son is called unigenitus: *The unigenitus Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him*. Way, Truth, Life, Light: *I am the way, and the truth, and the life*; and, *I am the light of the world*. Wisdom, Power, Christ...

the power of God, and the wisdom of God*. Radiance, Character, Image, Seal: *Who being the brightness of his glory*, and, *the figure of his substance*, and, *the image of his goodness*, and, *For him hath God the Father sealed*. Lord, King, He Who Is, The Almighty: *The Lord rained fire from the Lord*, and, *A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom*, and, *He who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty*. These things are clearly said concerning the Son, as are many others which have the same force, none of which is adventitious or later added to the Son, or to the Spirit, just as it is not to the Father himself; for perfection does not come from addition. For there was never a time when He was without the Word; nor was there a time when He was not the Father; nor was there a time when He was not true, or unwise, or powerless, or lacking in life, or brightness, or goodness.

^B But you, on the other hand, enumerate to me those words of your own ingratitude—namely these: *My God and your God*, he is *greater*, he *created*, he *made*, he *sanctified*. If you wish, add also *servant*, and *obedient*; that he *gave*, that he *learned*, that he was *commanded*, that he was *sent*, and the fact that he *could not do, or say, or judge, or give, or will anything of himself*. Add, furthermore, these: his ignorance, his subjection, his prayer, his questioning, his progress, his consummation. Add, if you please, things even lower than these: sleeping, hungering, thirsting, weeping, agonizing, being brought under. You might perhaps reproach him for the cross and death as well. For it seems to me that you would pass over the resurrection and the ascension, since something in these is found to favor our cause too. You could pile up many other things besides these if you wished to construct that equivocal and adscititious ^C God of your own opinion, rather than the one we acknowledge: the true God, equal in honor to the Father.

It is by no means difficult, however, to examine each one of these individually and to explain them in a pious sense, and to purge away and remove the stumbling block that exists in the Scriptures—provided that you are truly offended by them and are not rather sinning by design. But to summarize the matter: this is what you must do: attribute the more sublime expressions to the Divinity, to that nature which is superior to passions and body; but attribute the humbler ones to the composite being, to the One who for your sake emptied himself, became incarnate—or, and it is no less appropriate for me to say this, became human—and was subsequently exalted, so that you, having discarded the lowliness and crudity of those doctrines, may learn to be loftier, and to ascend together with the Divinity, and not to cling to things that fall under the senses, but rather to rise up with things understood by the mind, and you shall know what is the principle of nature, and what is the principle of the Incarnation.

^A For this one, who now is an object of scorn to you, was—and even before you was—the one who is now man, and he was uncompounded. “What he was, he remained; what he was not, he assumed.” Originally he was without cause; for what cause of God could be adduced? But later he also came into being for a cause. And the cause was that the one to be saved and the one who had committed the outrage—who for this very reason shows contempt for the divinity, because he accepted your coarseness, having associated ^B with the flesh through an intermediate mind—should be brought to salvation. And this lower God, having become man, since he was mingled with God, became one, the superior element having prevailed, so that I might become as much of a god as he became man.

Of the same, to the same, from the second discourse concerning the Son.

^B There is among them that saying which is also exceedingly ready at hand: “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.” How shall we answer this? Shall we accuse Solomon? Shall we invalidate his earlier words on account of his final fall? Shall we not rather say that the Word is the very Wisdom herself, as it were the knowledge and the craftsman-word, in accordance with which all things have been established? For Scripture is accustomed to use personification even for inanimate things, as where it says, “The sea said this and that,” and, “The abyss said: It is not in me,” and, “The heavens ^C declare the glory of God.” And again, a sword is ordered to act, and mountains and hills are asked for a cause for leaping. We say nothing of these things, even if by some of those who came before us they have been put forward as strong and valid arguments. But let it be granted that these words are of the Savior himself, of the true Wisdom. But let us consider this for a little while together: What among all things is devoid of a cause? Divinity. For no one can state a cause for God; otherwise that would be older than God. But what is the cause of the humanity, which God undertook for our sakes? Assuredly, that we might be saved. For what else could be adduced as a cause? Therefore, since we find here openly both “he created” and “he begets me,” let us cense that this is said simply. For what we find to be joined with a cause, that is to be assigned to the humanity; but what is simple and devoid of a cause, that is to be ascribed to the divinity. ^D Come then, does that “he created” have an annexed cause? For he says, “He created me the beginning of his ways for his works.” Now his works are truth and judgment, for whose sake he was anointed with divinity. For this anointing is of the humanity. But that “he begets me” has no cause—show me anything attached to this. Who then will gainsay that Wisdom, according to the lower generation, is said to have been created, but according to the first and more incomprehensible one, is said to have been begotten?

To this there follows also that he is called a servant, and one who serves many well; and that also, that it is for him a great and noble thing to be called the Son of God. For he truly served in the flesh, and by generation, and by our own passions, for the sake of our freedom, and for all those whom he saved when they were held under the power of sin. And what is greater than a man...

that it should happen for human humility to be joined with God, and from that union to be made God, and to be visited from on high by the Rising Sun, so that even that holy thing which was being born should be called the Son of the Highest, and be gifted with a name that is above every name? And what else is this, at any time, if not God? And that every knee should bow to him who emptied himself for our sake, and who mingled the divine image with the form of a slave, and that all the house of Israel should know that God made him both Lord and Christ. For these things happened by the operation of the One born, but by the good pleasure of the Begetter.

Second, what is it that they put forward as one of their greatest and most unassailable points? For he must reign until this time, ^B and be received by heaven until the times of restoration, and have his seat at the right hand until the overpowering of his enemies. What then? After this, is there to be an end of his reign, or is he to depart from the heavens? Who is to make him cease? Or for what cause? What an audacious expositor you are, and how utterly lacking in kingly reverence! And yet you hear that his kingdom has no end. But you suffer from this because you do not understand that this word, "until," is not altogether opposed to the future, but sets a limit up to this point; but regarding what is beyond this, it does not deny it. Or how will you understand—not to mention other examples—the saying, "I am with you until the consummation of the age"? Is it as if, after that, he will no longer be present? And what logic is that? But not only that, it is also because you do not distinguish the meanings. ^C For he is said to reign in one way as Omnipotent, and as King of those who are willing and those who are not; and in another way, as working the subjection in us, and placing us under his own kingdom, as we willingly accept being ruled. Now, of the kingdom understood in the first way, there shall be no end; but of the second, what? It is our being taken under his hand, as we are saved. For what need is there to work subjection in those who are subjected? After which, he arises to bring judgment from the earth, and to divide those who are obtaining salvation from those who are perishing; after which, God stands in the midst of the gods—that is, the blessed people—judging and distinguishing of what honor and of what mansion each is worthy.

Join to this also the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. What are you saying, as if he is not already subjected now? ^D And is it even necessary for God to be subjected to God, being God himself? You speak as if he were some brigand or enemy of God. But consider the matter in this way: Just as he was called a curse for my sake—he who loosed my curse—and sin, he who "takes away the sin of the world"; and as the new Adam is made in place of the old; in the same way he also takes upon himself my contumacy and rebellion, so that, as head of the whole body...

he might be called ^A disobedient according to me. But when all things are subjected to him (and they shall be subjected through both acknowledgement and transformation), then he also has fulfilled his subjection, bringing me in, who have obtained salvation. For this is the subjection of Christ, in my view: the fulfillment of the Father's will. The Son is subject to the Father, and the Father to the Son; the one acting, the other approving, as we said before; and thus he presents to God what is subjected, having made our nature his own through the one who subjected it. Such also, it seems to me, is the meaning of: "God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" For he was not ^B forsaken—neither by the Father nor by his own divinity, which some suppose, as if it feared suffering and on that account withdrew from the suffering one (for who forced him to be born below or to ascend the cross?)—but in himself, as I said, he portrayed our situation. For we were the ones formerly forsaken and despised; but now we have been adopted and saved through the sufferings of the impassible one, just as he also took our foolishness and our failings upon himself, as the things that follow in the psalm proclaim. For the twenty-first psalm is clearly referred to Christ.

It is of the same speculative line of thought that he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; ^C that he offered supplications with loud cries and tears; that he was heard because of his reverence; and that he was tempted—all of which are wonderfully enacted and woven together on our behalf. For as the Word, he was neither obedient nor disobedient. These things pertain to those who are held under the command of others and belong to the second class; the former to the upright and honest, the latter to the wicked and those worthy of punishment. But as in the form of a servant, he humbles himself to his fellow servants and to servants, and puts on the form of another, carrying me entirely within himself along with my own burdens, so that he might consume within himself that which is worse, just as fire consumes wax or the sun a mist of the earth, and ^D that I might partake of his own goods through this union. For this reason, he honors obedience by his own deed, and makes trial of it by suffering; for disposition is not sufficient, just as it is not for us, unless we also apply our hand to deeds; for a deed is a manifestation of an inward disposition. And perhaps it would not be any worse to suppose that he tests our obedience and measures all things by his own sufferings through a certain art of benevolence, so that he may know our nature through his own, and how much is required of us and how much should be forgiven, calculating our weakness together with his own suffering. I shall also add this to what has been said, considering with myself this passage: "For because he himself has suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted," which clearly points to the same understanding.

From the same oration.

Thirdly, they count the "greater"; fourthly, "My God and your God." If, then, he were called greater but not equal, perhaps there might be something in their argument; but since we clearly find both, what will these noble men say? What strength will they have? How will the incompatible be reconciled? For it is impossible for the same thing to be at once greater than and equal to itself; is it not then evident that the word "greater" is to be referred to the cause, and "equal" to the nature? And this we acknowledge with great candor and honesty. ^B Perhaps another, contending more fiercely against our argument, might say that being from such a cause is not inferior to being without cause. For he would partake of the glory of the unbegun, because he is from the unbegun; and there is added the prerogative of generation—a thing so great, and to those who have intelligence, so venerable. For as to saying that he is greater than the man perceived—this is indeed true, but not a great thing; for what is wondrous if God is greater than man? So much, then, let it be said against those who boast insolently of the word "greater."

But he might be called God, not in respect of the Word, but of the visible part; for how could he be called God of him who is strictly God? Just as he is also Father, not of the visible, but of the Word; for he was double. So that in one sense it is used strictly, and in another not strictly, which is the opposite of how it is in our case. For with us, God is strictly God, but not strictly Father. ^C And this is what causes error in the heretics, namely, the coupling of the names, the names being interchanged on account of the union. A sign of this is that when natures are distinguished in thought, the names are also divided. Listen to Paul speaking: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory." Christ's God, but the Father of glory; for even if the combination is one, it is not so by nature, but by their union. What could be more clear?

^D Fifth, let there be counted the statement that he receives life, or…

judgment, or the inheritance of the nations, or authority over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or whatever is said, and the rest regarding his humanity. ^A And if you also attribute these to God, it is not absurd; for you will not give them as something acquired, but as things having existed with him from the beginning, and by reason of nature, not of grace.

Sixth, let there be posited the statement that the Son cannot do anything of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it ^B. And these words must be explained in such a sense as this: "to be able," or "not to be able," is not said in one way; for it has a varied and manifold signification. For sometimes it is spoken according to a deficiency of strengths, and with consideration given to a certain time and person: as that a boy cannot wrestle, or a puppy cannot see, or struggle with someone; for perhaps one day he will wrestle, and see, and struggle with this person, even if he were unable to do so with another. Sometimes it is said of that which happens very often, as that: *A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden* ^C; for it might happen that a certain city could be hidden, should a larger mountain obstruct its view. It is also said to be "impossible" that which is not at all fitting and consonant with reason; of which kind is that: *The sons of the bridegroom cannot fast, as long as the bridegroom is present* ^D; whether you understand him who is perceived by bodily eyes (for that time was not a time of hardship and affliction, but of joy, during which Christ was with his disciples), or whether you understand him as the Word: for what need is there to fast bodily for those who are purified by the Word? It is also said in a fourth signification, that this cannot be done, from which our will recoils; of such a kind is that: *He could not do signs there because of their unbelief* ^B, who received them; for since for the repelling of diseases it is necessary for both to be present, namely, that both the faith of the sick person and the power and capability of the healer be brought, therefore, with one of the two failing, it could not happen. And I do not know if this should not also be added to that which is consonant with reason: for it was not fitting to bring medicine to those to whom disbelief was going to bring harm. In which order should also be placed that which is said: *The world cannot hate you*; and, *How can you speak good things, being evil?* For in what way is any of these "impossible," unless because the will opposes it? Now that is also termed "impossible" which is indeed impossible by nature, but possible to God if he wills; in which category is that: *The same man cannot be born twice*, and *a camel cannot pass through a needle's eye*; for what would prevent these from happening, if the will of God should so ordain it?

Beyond all these modes, that is called "impossible" which can be done in no way at all, as that which we are now investigating. ^C For just as we say it is "impossible" for God to be evil, or not to be at all (for this would argue the impotence and weakness of God rather than his power); or for that which is not, to exist, or for twice two to be at once four and ten: so it is impossible and inadmissible for the Son to do something which the Father does not do. For all things that the Father has are the Son's; as, conversely, those things of the Son are the Father's. Nothing, therefore, is peculiar, because they are common; since even being itself is common and equal in honor, even if [it is so].

TIT. XI.

^A...it was not subjected, but shall be subjected later, in a human manner for our sake, and not in a divine manner for his own. From the same. If, after the incarnation, because of his obedience, the Father granted to the Son—being God—the name that is above every name, and every tongue confessed him Lord, before the incarnation he neither possessed the name that is above every name, nor did he receive from all the confession that he is Lord. He became greater, therefore, after the incarnation than he was before the incarnation; which is absurd. Such also is the statement: *All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me*. Therefore, these things must be understood as referring to the incarnation, and not to the divinity.

From the same. If the Son is the Creator of all things, and he does not know the time of the judgment, he does not know that which he created. For he did not say he was ignorant of the judgment, but of the time; and how is this not absurd?

From the same. If the Son does not possess the knowledge of all things that the Father has, he lied when he said: *All that the Father has is mine*; and: *As the Father knows me, so I also know the Father*. But if knowing the Father is one thing, and knowing the things of the Father is another, and knowing the Father is greater than knowing the things of his, [it follows] that since everyone is greater than his own possessions, the Son, who knows the greater—*For no one*, he says, *knows the Father except the Son*—could not have been ignorant of the lesser. This, however, is impossible. He was silent, therefore, because it was not profitable for men to hear the time of the judgment. For the constant expectation of it makes them more fervent in the pursuit of piety; but knowledge that a long period of time would intervene would have made them more negligent in the hope that they would be able to please God even if they repented later. For how is it possible that he who knows all things up to that very hour should be ignorant of that hour? Furthermore, the Apostle would have spoken in vain: *In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge*. ^B

From the same. If the Son lives because of the Father, he lives through another and not through himself. But he who lives through another cannot be life itself; for neither is he who is holy by grace holiness itself. The Son lied, therefore, when he said: *I am the life*; and again: *So the Son also gives life to whom he wills*. Therefore, the statement must be understood as referring to the incarnation, and not to the divinity.

From the same. If, they say, the Savior is the vine, and we are the branches, while the Father is the vine-dresser; and the branches are of the same nature as the vine, but the vine is not of the same nature as the vine-dresser—the Son is of our nature, and we are a part of him, but he is not of the same nature as the Father, but is entirely alien to him. To them we shall reply: The Lord has called us branches not of his divinity, but of his flesh. With regard to... ^C

being said as if the Son had a will of his own, and one separated from the Father’s will, but rather as one he does not have, the conclusion is of this kind: "Not that I should do my own will," for my will is not separated from yours, but it is common to both me and you, for whom there is one divinity, and so also one will. For many things said in this way are spoken from a common source, not in the way of affirmation, but of negation, as in the text: "For God does not give the Spirit by measure." For he neither gives it measuredly, nor is it measured; for God is not measured by God. And again: "Neither my iniquity, nor my sin." For the statement is not as though it existed, but as though it did not exist. And again: "Not because of our righteousnesses which we have done," for we have not done them. And this is clear even from what follows. For what, he says, is the will of the Father? That everyone who believes in the Son might be saved, and attain to the final resurrection. Is this, therefore, the will of the Father, but not at all of the Son? Or does he preach the Gospel and win faith among men against his will? But who would believe this? Since even that which the Son says, that the message which is heard is not his own, but the Father’s, has exactly the same force. For I am unable to see, though I have considered the matter for a long time and much with myself, how this could be the property of one or of him alone, which is common; nor, I think, is anyone else, unless my opinion deceives me. If you understand the will in this way, you understand it correctly and most piously and orthodoxly, as is my opinion, and indeed that of anyone who is endowed with right judgment.

^C The eighth argument they bring forward is: "That they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"; and, "There is none good, but the only God." The solution to this argument seems to me very easy. For if you attribute these words, "the only true," solely to the Father, where at last will you place Truth itself? For if you understand in this way the text, "To the only wise God," or that, "Who alone has immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable," or finally, "To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, to the only wise God," the Son will certainly perish for you, condemned either to death, or to darkness, or to not being wise, nor king, nor invisible, nor indeed God at all, which is the head of the things we have said. And what can be brought forward that would not also imply the loss of goodness, which is most especially that of God alone, along with other things?

But I think that the words, "That they may know you the only true God," are said for the rejection of those who are called gods, though they are not gods; for it would not have added, "and Jesus Christ whom you have sent," if the words "only true" were intended to remove him by an opposing distinction, and were not a discourse about the common divinity of both. And those words of Christ, "None is good," looked to meeting the challenging expert in the law, who was attributing goodness to him as a man. For, he says, that which is supremely good is of God alone, even if this be also called a man, as in the text: "The good man out of the good treasure brings forth good things," and elsewhere, "I will give the kingdom to the good one above you," the word of God toward the

^A And those other things like this which are said concerning those who are praised among us, to whom the effluence of the First Good has reached in a secondary sense. If we persuade you of this, it is well; but if not, what will you say to those who, on the other hand, contend that the Son alone is called God, according to your own hypotheses? In what words? In those: "This is thy God, and no other shall be accounted beside him." And after a few words: "After this he was seen on earth, and conversed with men." That the statement is not about the Father, but about the Son, this addition clearly shows. For this is He who conversed with us bodily, and became present among those below. But if it were to prevail that this is said of the Father, and not of those who are considered gods, we would surely have defeated the Father by those means through which we were eagerly pursuing the Son. And what could be more miserable or more damaging than this victory?

^B The ninth point they will raise is this: "Always living to make intercession for us." Very good, and most mystically and benevolently said. For "to intercede" does not mean, as in the common custom, to seek vengeance (for this would be a matter of humility), but it signifies to mediate on our behalf through the reason of his mediation, just as the Spirit also is said to intercede for us. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." For he still intercedes even now, as man, for my salvation, because he is with that body which he assumed, until he makes me god by the power of the incarnation; even if he is no longer known according to the flesh—I mean, the carnal passions—but, without sin, they are ours. In this way, we also have an advocate, Jesus Christ, not as one who prostrates himself before the Father on our behalf and falls down slavishly. Away with such a truly slavish suspicion, and one unworthy of the Spirit. For it is not just for the Father to require this, nor for the Son to suffer it, nor is it pious or fitting to think this of God. ^C But by those things which He suffered as a man, He persuades me to endure, as the Word and Exhortation. This is how I understand this advocacy.

The tenth point they raise is ignorance, and that no one knows the last day or hour, not even the Son himself, but only the Father. Yet how can Wisdom, the creator of the ages, the finisher and transformer of them, the end of all things that have come to be, who so knows the things of God as the spirit of man knows the things that are in him, be ignorant of any of the things that exist? For what is more perfect than this knowledge? How then does He precisely know those things which are before the hour, and things as if in the time of the end, yet is ignorant of the hour itself? For the matter is like a riddle, just as if one were...

to say that he accurately knows the things before the wall, but is ignorant of the wall itself; or that, while knowing the end of the day, he does not know the beginning of the night; where the knowledge of the one necessarily brings with it knowledge of the other. ^A For is it not entirely clear to all that, although he knows as God, he says he is ignorant as man, if one separates that which is visible from that which is considered by the mind? For the fact that the name "Son" is used absolutely in this place, without relation, and the "of whom" is not added to the Son, allows us this supposition, so that we may interpret this ignorance in the more pious way, attributing it to the human nature, and not to the divine, in our reasoning. If, therefore, this account satisfies our adversaries, let us plant our feet here, and let nothing else be sought from us. ^B But if not, we shall offer this second exposition: that, just as each of all other things, so too must the knowledge of the greatest things be referred to the cause, which is the progenitor, for the sake of honoring the Begetter. It seems to me, [and] to any reader who is a man of learning among us (56), that one might even slightly discern that not even the Son knows the day or the hour otherwise than as the Father knows. For what is inferred from this, such as it is? Since the Father knows, therefore the Son also [knows], as if it were clear that this is known to no one, nor is it graspable, save by the first nature. It remained to treat of the "commandment" ^C, and of the fact that it is said that he always kept the Father's commands, and did those things that were pleasing to him; and furthermore of the "consummation" and "exaltation," and of the fact that it is written that he "learned obedience" from the things which he suffered, and of the "priesthood," and "oblation," and "delivery," and "prayer" to him who was able to save him from death; and to these [we must add] the "agony," and the "sweat of blood," and the "prayer," and whatever else is of the same kind—unless it be clear to all that such names refer to the nature that is capable of suffering, and not to that immutable nature which is sublime above all pain and torment.

Of the same [author], on the dogma and the ordination of bishops.

The Father is indeed without beginning, and is understood and called the "principle" [or "principate"]; I mean the principle as the cause and fountain of eternal light. But the Son is ^D not, indeed, altogether without a principle; however, he is the principle of all things. But when I say "principle," do not interject time, nor set any medium between the begetter and the begotten, nor, through that which you poorly interpose between those things which have the same eternity and are conjoined, divide the nature. For if time is older than the Son, the Father would without doubt be the first cause of that [time]. But if this be so, how then will he be the creator of times, who falls under time? Or in what way is he the Lord of all, if time has preceded him and dominates him? The Father is therefore without principle; for he does not derive being from elsewhere, nor from himself. But the Son—if you take the Father as the cause—is not without principle; for the Father is the principle of the Son as cause; but if you conceive of a principle from time, he is also without beginning; for the Lord of times is not under time.

^A And if, because bodies are subject to time, you therefore demand that the Son also be subject to time, you will attribute a body to the incorporeal; and if, because things generated among us, not existing before, come into being later, you for that reason compel the Son also to have passed from non-existence into being, you are comparing things that cannot be compared—God and man, body and that which is devoid of body. Therefore, he will also suffer and dissolve and perish, just as our bodies do. You, then, demand that God be generated in this way because bodies are so generated; I, however, affirm that he is not generated in this way, because the manner of generating bodies is such (for those whose nature is different have a different mode of generation); unless you contend that he is also subject to corporeal matter in all other respects—that is, that he suffers, and dwells in sorrow, and labors with hunger and thirst, and, in short, experiences all those affections to which the nature of the body, or of both parts joined together, is subject. ^B But your mind does not admit these things; for the discourse is about God. Do not, therefore, admit the generation in any other way than as divine.

But if he has been generated, how has he been generated, you ask? Answer me, O dialectician, acute and invincible! If he has been created, how has he been created? And then inquire of me, "How has he been generated?" Is there passion in generation? ^C There is passion also in creation; for is not the forming, and the care, and the extension into parts of that which was thought of at once and suddenly, a sort of passion? Is there time in generation? Things that are created are also in time. Is there place there? There is place here, too. Is there failure of expectation in generation? Creation also sometimes frustrates expectations. These things I have heard from you in your philosophizing; for what the mind has sketched, the hand has often failed to complete. But, you say, he established the whole by Word and by will. For he himself spoke, and they were made; he himself commanded, and they were created. When you say that all things were created by the Word of God, you are not introducing human creation; for no one among us brings about what comes to be by word. ^D For nothing would be more sublime or more effortless for us if the mere speaking were the completion of the work; so that if God does create the things that are created by Word, his manner of creating is not human. For either show me a man who accomplishes something by word, or admit that God does not create as a man does. Otherwise, sketch a city by will, and let the city stand forth; wish for a son to be born to you, and let a child forthwith stand before you; wish for anything else of the things that are fashioned by hands, and let your will immediately pass into the work. If, however, none of these things follows upon our will, but with God the will is action, it is indeed clear that man creates in one way, and the Creator of all, God, in another. How, then, is it that, while he does not create in a human way, he is compelled to be generated in a human way? You, you see, were not, then you came into being, then you generate; for this reason you bring things from non-existence into being. Or, to say something deeper, perhaps you do not bring them from non-existence either, since even Levi, he says, was still in the loins of his father before coming into being.

Nor let anyone slander this discourse. For I do not say that the Son exists from the Father in such a way as though He were first in the Father and then traveled into being; for He was not imperfect first and then perfect, as is the law of our generation. ^B These are the things of those who slander; these are the things of those who readily leap upon all that is said. But we do not think so, nor do we hold such an opinion; but at the same time as the Father exists unbegotten (for the mind does not lapse into the thought that there was a time when He was not), the Son also existed begottenly. Thus, the existence of the Father coincides with the generation of the Only-begotten, who is from Him, and not after Him, except merely by the conception of a principle; and by principle I mean cause. For I frequently repeat the same discourse, fearing the dullness and coarseness of your mind.

From the same, from the 2nd discourse on peace

^C But to you, your son is a great and very great honor, and so much the more, in as much as he expresses in all things the character of his father, and is the genuine image of the begetter, and you would not choose to be the master of ten thousand slaves rather than the father of one son; and will you think something greater in God than that He is the begetter of one Son, who does not take away His glory but adds to it, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him? Do you not perceive that while you posit a principle for created things—namely, of the Son and of the Spirit—whom you contend are created, you neither honor the principle nor treat with respect those things that exist from that principle? The former, because you introduce the principle as something small and unworthy of Godhead; and the latter, because you make them not only small, but more contemptible than all created things, if indeed they came into being for their sake, and at a time, as tools for the craftsman before the things which he is about to make by his art, which did not exist before but came into existence for this reason, that he might create and make through them whatever God willed, as if His will were not sufficient for such a task? For everything that is made for the sake of something else is viler and worse than that for the sake of which it was made. ^D But I, who conceive the principle of the Godhead in such a way that it is without time and cannot be separated or circumscribed by any boundary, honor both the principle and those things which exist from the principle equally: the former, because it is the principle of such things; the latter, because they are such, and from such, and are not separated by time, nor by nature, nor by majesty, but—though this is admirable—are so one, that they are yet distinct. For I repeat these words again and again, that I might meet the dullness and coarseness of your mind.

^A For one part is ungenerous, the other disordered; one entirely Judaic, the other Hellenic and polytheistic. And I contemplate this also—and perhaps not unlearnedly, nor ignorantly, but even very thoughtfully—that for you there is no danger at all in introducing a generated Son; for the Unbegotten cannot suffer anything in generating, being free of bodily and material things, since He is not even a body. And even the common notions regarding God concede this, so why do we fear a fear where there is no fear? And why are we impious in vain, as the saying goes? For me, however, there is the danger of losing the Godhead, if I were to admit a created thing; for that which is created is not God, nor is a fellow-servant a Lord, even if it holds the first rank of servitude and creation, and even if it is only by philanthropy that it is insulted. For he who deprives another of due honor does not honor him any the more by what he gives him, but rather insults him by what he takes away, even if the thing he bestows wears the appearance of honor. And if, for you, passions are imagined in generation, for me they are imagined in creation. For a created thing is not created without passion, even if, according to you, it has not been generated; and yet it has been created according to the true word. Accept the remainder of the argument for yourself, ^B which dares, by the term of the Creator, to call one who is small equal.

Of the same, from the second discourse on Pascha

Do you bring these charges against God? Do you suppose he is the more abject for these reasons: that he girds himself with a towel, and washes the feet of his disciples, and declares humility to be the best way to exaltation and glory? That he humbles himself for the sake of the soul cast down to the earth, in order that he might also lift up that which was drawn downward by sin? But how is it that you do not also accuse him of eating with tax collectors, and being among tax collectors, and making them his disciples, so that he himself might gain something? What is this? The salvation of sinners. If one were not to blame the physician for stooping down to bodily suffering and enduring the stench, that he might grant health to those who are ill, and for stooping down into a pit out of philanthropy, that he might hoist up the fallen beast according to the law. He was sent, indeed, but as a man. For he was twofold. ^C Since he also grew weary, and was hungry, and thirsty, and struggled, and wept, by the law of the body. But if he was also God, what of that? Consider the sending to be the good pleasure of the Father, to whom he refers that which is his own, and whom he honors as the beginning, in order that he might not seem to be contrary to God. For he is also said to have been delivered up, but it is also written that he delivered up himself; and to have been raised by the Father, but also that he raised himself, and ascended again. Those things are of the good pleasure, these are of his power. ^D You, however, speak of the things that diminish him but pass over the things that exalt him. And you reckon that he suffered, but you do not add that he did so willingly; or what he suffers even now.

^A The Word, on the one hand, is honored by some as God, and is joined together; but on the other hand, he is dishonored by some as flesh, and is separated. With whom should he be more angry, or rather, whom should he forgive? Those who unite him wrongly, or those who divide him? For he will have to divide the former, and join the latter; the former by number, and the latter by his divinity. Are you offended by the flesh? The Jews were also. Or perhaps you also call him a Samaritan? And I shall be silent about what follows. You do not believe in his divinity? Not even the demons do this, O you who are more unbelieving than demons, and more ungrateful than the Jews! They considered the designation of the Son to be a word of equal honor; these knew the God who drove them out. For they were convinced by what they suffered. But you do not even accept his equality, nor do you acknowledge his divinity.

Against the Arians and Eunomians, from the second discourse of Gregory of Nyssa to Simplicius concerning the Son.

God commands through the Prophet not to consider any recent god to be God, nor to worship a strange god. It is therefore evident that what is not from eternity is called "recent"; and conversely, what is not recent is called "eternal." Therefore, he who does not believe that the Only-Begotten God is from the Father from eternity does not deny that he is recent; for what is not eternal is, in every way, recent; and whatever is recent is not God, as the Scripture said, that "there shall be no recent god in you." Therefore, he who says that there was a time when he was not, he denies his divinity. Again, he who says, "You shall never worship a strange god," forbids the worship of a strange God; and a "strange" [god] is considered by comparison and distinction with our own proper God. Who, then, is our proper God? It is clearly the true God. And who is the strange [god]? It is certainly he who is estranged from the nature of the true God. If, therefore, our proper God is the true God, if the Only-Begotten God is not of the nature of the true God, as the heretics say, he is a strange God, and not our own. But the Gospel says that "the sheep will not follow a stranger." He who says that he is created makes him a stranger to the nature of the true God. What, then, do those do who say that he is a creature? Do they worship him, the creature, or not? For if they do not worship [him], they are Judaizing, denying the worship of Christ; but if they do worship [him], they are idolaters; for they worship him who is strange to the true God. But it is equally impious either not to worship the Son, or to worship a strange God. It is necessary, therefore, to call the Son the true [Son] of the true Father, so that we may worship him, and not be condemned as worshiping a strange god. And against those who quote from Proverbs that "The Lord created me," and who through this think they bring forth some firm argument to prove that the Founder and Creator of all things is a creature, it is fitting to say these things, that many things were done on our behalf by the Only-

-^Abegotten God. For being the Word, He became flesh; and being God, He became man; and being incorporeal, He became body; and further, in addition to these, He also became sin, and a curse, and a stone, and an axe, and bread, and a sheep, and a way, and a door, and a rock, and many such things, being none of these by nature, but having become such on our behalf by way of economy.

^B Just as, therefore, being the Word, He became flesh for our sake; and being God, He became man; so also, being Creator, He became a creature for our sake, inasmuch as flesh is a created thing. As therefore He said through the prophet: “Thus saith the Lord, who formed me from the womb to be his servant,” so also He said through Solomon: “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works.” The one formed in the womb of the virgin, therefore, according to the word of the prophet, is the servant, not the Lord; that is, the man according to the flesh in whom God was manifested. And here, the one created as the beginning of His ways is not God, but the man in whom God was manifest to us, so that the way of human salvation which had been corrupted might be renewed again.

Since, therefore, we know two things regarding Christ—the one divine, the other human—the divine in His nature, and that which is according to man in His economy—we consistently attest the eternal to His divinity, and we ascribe the created to His human nature. For just as according to the prophet He was formed in the womb as a servant, so also according to Solomon He was manifested in the flesh through this servile creation. And when they say, “If He was, He was not begotten,” and “If He was begotten, He was not,” let them be taught that it is not fitting to apply the properties of carnal birth to the divine nature. For bodies, indeed, which were not, are born; but God causes things which are not to be, He does not Himself come into being from that which is not.

^C For this reason Paul also calls Him the radiance of His glory, that we might be taught that just as the light from a lamp is both from the nature of the one who gives off the light, and is with it (for at the same time the lamp appeared, the light from it also shone forth together), so the Apostle bids us also to understand here that the Son is from the Father, and never is the Father without the Son; for it is not possible for glory to be without radiance, just as it is not possible for a lamp to be without radiance. And it is manifest that just as the existence of radiance is a testimony to the existence of the glory (for if there were no glory, there would not be that which is radiated from it), so to say that there is no radiance is a proof that there is no glory either, when the radiance was not; for it is impossible for glory to be without radiance. Just as, therefore, it is not possible in the case of the radiance to say, “If it was, it was not begotten,” and, “If it was begotten, it was not,” so it is vain to say these things concerning the Son, because the Son is the radiance.

^A But those who speak of the "lesser" and the "greater" in regard to the Son and the Father should be taught by Paul not to measure the immeasurable; for the Apostle calls the Son the "character" (imprint) of the Father’s substance. It is clear, therefore, that whatever the substance of the Father is, such also is the character of that substance; for it is not possible for the character to be lesser than the substance that is contemplated in it. But the great John also teaches these things, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." For by saying, "In the beginning was," and not "after the beginning," he showed that the beginning was never without the Word. And by showing that the Word was also "with God," he signified the completeness of the Son in relation to the Father, for the Word is contemplated entirely with the entire God. For if the Word were deficient in His own magnitude, so as not to be able to be with the whole God, it would be absolutely necessary to think that what is left over by the Word is "wordless" (without reason) in God. But in fact, the greatness of the Word is contemplated with every greatness of God. See, therefore, that there is no place in divine dogmas to speak of "greater" and "lesser."

^B But those who say that the begotten is by nature unlike the unbegotten should be taught not to play the fool, using the example of Abel and Adam. For indeed, Adam was not born according to the natural birth of men, but Abel was begotten from Adam. Yet nothing prevented Adam from being a man because he was not begotten, nor did birth make Abel anything other or different from human nature; rather, both this one and that one were human, even if the one had been born and the other existed without birth. Therefore, in divine dogmas too, being begotten or not being begotten does not create a difference of nature; but just as there is one humanity, or human nature, in Adam and Abel, so too is there one Godhead, or divine nature, in the Father and in the Son.

From the same discourse, concerning the Godhead of the Son and of the Spirit.

^C The disciples of Eunomius say that the Son "at one time was not." If the Son was not, then entirely, neither was the Father. If the character (imprint) was not, then neither was the substance. If the radiance was not, then neither was the "radiator." If power was not, if wisdom was not—without which God is not—then neither was God. For it is not possible to conceive of glory without radiance, or substance without a character, or a wise being without wisdom, or a powerful being without power, or finally a Father without a Son. Therefore, it has been demonstrated through the things said that he who abolishes the Son abolishes the Father as well. But where the Son is not worshipped, and neither is the Father believed to be, the Godhead is altogether abolished. ^D And to abolish the Godhead belongs to none other than an Epicurean. It is clear, then, that the Epicureans are the authors of this opinion of impiety.

From the same discourse.

Some are tearing certain phrases from the Scripture and proposing them to the ignorant, and they say that He admits...

that He was sent by the Father. ^A Well, that He was sent, you know; but that the one who sent Him is with Him, you have not heard. For He says: "He who sent Me is with Me," and you have not been taught through the things said that He is both sent and not separated. For He is sent on account of philanthropy, but He is not separated because of the indivisibility of the nature.

From the same discourse.

They say again that it is confessed through the Only-Begotten that the Father is greater than Him. "For My Father," He says, "is greater than I." And yet the same One says this: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." If the Father is greater than the Son, how is the greater contained in the lesser? If the Son is lesser than the Father, how is the greater filled by the lesser? For the greater is necessarily confined in the lesser, ^B and the lesser is not able to be expanded to the surpassing. So there is a necessity for the Son to be lacking in the Father, but for the Father to abound in the Son; and according to them, He who said, "I am in the Father," is lying, since He ought to have said, if He is lesser, that "I am in a part of the Father, and a part of the Father is in Me." But if the whole Father is in the whole Son, and the whole Son is in the whole Father, where is that which is more, and where is that which is lacking? And what need is there to say much, when it is necessary to encompass all their prattle with one utterance: "Who, existing in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal to God"? Tell me, hearing "equal," do you think of "unequal"? O empty doctrine, which interprets what is equal as unequal! It has been said, therefore, that "He who sent Me is greater than I." ^C Let us then consider whose this speech is and how He was sent, while existing in the form of God, or receiving the form of a servant, being in the fullness of the Godhead, or emptying Himself in the form of a servant? For it is, I think, manifest to everyone that the divine power and nature, being everywhere, and passing through all things, and grasping the whole, could not reasonably be said to be sent. For there is nothing empty outside of it, in which it is not previously present, so as to arrive when it is sent; but by its preserving power holding all things together, it has nowhere to move, itself being the fullness of the whole. Therefore, the descent and condescension of the Son toward our humble and weak state, having taken place according to the will ^D of the Father, is called a mission. For the transition from that undefiled nature to our life does not make a local movement of the Lord, but indicates the descent from the height of the Godhead to the humble state of the flesh. Therefore, He did not descend appearing as the naked Word, but having become flesh. When, therefore, the discourse looks toward the human, it confesses that He who is not seen is greater than He who is seen through the flesh; but when it leads the mind toward the divine, this comparative opposition of greater and lesser ceases, and instead of these, unity is proclaimed: "For I," He says, "and the Father are one."

Item against the Arians, from the interpretation of Great John Chrysostom concerning the words: "Let us make man."

^A Here he deals a mortal blow to those who hold the opinion of Arius. For he did not speak in the manner of one commanding—"Make"—as if he were addressing one lesser or inferior in essence; rather, he speaks with great equality: "Let us make." And the sequence that follows clearly demonstrates to us a great similarity of essence.

From the interpretation concerning the words: "The Lord God took the man whom He had formed."

^B He immediately placed the two at the very beginning. For He did not say "Lord" and stop there, but added "Lord God," teaching us through these two words—Lord God—something hidden and mysterious, so that we might know that whether we hear "Lord" or "God," there is no difference between these two names. Therefore, do not, upon hearing Paul say: "One God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," think that there is any distinction in these terms, or that one indicates something greater and the other something lesser. For this reason, Scripture uses these names indiscriminately and interchangeably, so that it may not be permissible for contentious men to distort and confuse the correct doctrine with their argumentative disputes.

From the same, from the interpretation concerning the words: "In the beginning was the Word."

^C That saying, "In the beginning was the Word," they claim does not denote eternity. For, they say, this same thing was also said concerning the heaven and the earth. Oh, the marked impudence and great temerity! I am speaking to you about God, and you bring into the middle for me the earth and men formed from the earth? Therefore, because man is also called a son of God, and "gods"—for He says, "I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High"—will you call the divinity of the Only-Begotten into doubt and say that He has nothing more than you? "By no means," you say. And yet you act in this way, even if you do not speak it in words. For when you deny that He is the Son by nature, what else are you working toward than to prove that He is Son only by grace? But let us look at the testimonies that they bring forward to us. "In the beginning," he says, "God made the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unformed." And: "There was a man from Ramathaim-zophim." These are what they think are ^D extremely strong and valid arguments, and indeed they are strong and valid for confirming our doctrine. But for confirming their detestable opinion, nothing could be thought of as weaker. For tell me, I beseech you, what does that "made" have in common with this "was"? Or what does God have in common with man? Why do you mingle things that cannot be mingled? Why do you confuse things that are distinct, and why do you make the superior inferior? For here not only does the term "was" indicate eternity, but also the phrase "the Word was," and the phrase "In the beginning was." For just as that term "is," when it is said of man, denotes only the present time, but when it is said of God, it demonstrates the eternal—so too the term "was," when spoken of our nature, signifies the past time,

and that which is terminated, but if it is referred to God, it signifies eternity.

From the same place.

^A "Truly," he says, "but Peter said this clearly and openly." Where and when? When, speaking to the Jews, he said: "God made Him both Lord and Christ." [Act. II, 36.] Why then did you not add that which immediately follows in the order of the text, namely: "This Jesus whom you crucified?" [ibid.] Do you not know that of the things spoken, some relate to the immortal nature, and others to the economy of salvation? If this is not so, and you simply interpret everything as pertaining to the Godhead, you introduce a God who is capable of suffering. But if He is not capable of suffering, then He is not created. For if His blood were shed from His divine and ineffable nature, and if His essence itself were divided and cut by the nails on the cross for the sake of the flesh, then your argument would have some validity in this context. But since not even the devil himself would utter things so execrable, why do you feign a lack of understanding so inexcusable—an ignorance that not even the demons ^B would pretend to have? Moreover, the terms "Lord" and "Christ" refer not to essence, but to dignity. For the former signifies authority, and the latter, the anointing. What, then, will you say concerning the Son of God? For if, as you maintain, He were a creature, this would have no place. For God did not first create Him and then elect Him to His office; nor does He possess His sovereignty as an acquired thing, but by nature and essence. For when He was asked if He were a king, He said: "For this I was born." [John XVIII, 37.] But Peter speaks of Him as if He were someone who had been chosen and co-opted. For his entire discourse pertains to the explanation of the divine plan for human salvation. And why do you marvel if Peter speaks in this way? For Paul, when addressing the Athenians, calls Him only a man, saying: "In the man whom He has appointed, having provided faith to all, by raising Him from the dead." [Act. XVII, 31.] ^C He says nothing regarding the form of God, nor that He is equal to Him, nor that He is the radiance of His glory, and rightly so. For it was not yet the time for such words. It was enough for them to accept for the time being that He is a man and that He has risen. Christ Himself acted in the same way, and Paul, having been taught by Him, manages the matter in this manner. For He did not immediately reveal His Godhead to us; but at first, He was considered a prophet and Christ as simply a man; afterwards, it appeared through His works and words what He truly was. For this reason, Peter also employs this method at the beginning. For this was his first public address to the Jews. And because they were not able to learn anything clear concerning His divinity, he dwells upon words relating to the economy, so that, their hearing being exercised by these things, it might prepare the way for the rest of the teaching. And if one were to examine the whole address from the beginning, he would find this ^D which I say to be very radiant. For he calls Him a man, and he dwells upon matters relating to the passion, the resurrection, and the birth according to the flesh. And Paul, too, when he says, "Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh," teaches us nothing else but that what He made in...

reference to His humanity is to be understood. We confess this as well. But the son of thunder now discourses regarding His ineffable and pre-eternal existence; for this reason, having set aside "He made," he has placed "He was."

From the same sequence.

I heard, "In the beginning was the Word." What do you understand by this "beginning"? Is it not clear that it means He existed before all things intelligible, and before the ages? But if someone should say, "And how is it possible, if He is the Son, that He is not younger than the Father? For that which is from something must, by all necessity, be later than that from which it is," we shall answer that these are, for the most part, thoughts of human reasoning; and he who seeks this will also seek other things even more absurd than these, although such things should not even be entertained by the hearing. For our discourse now concerns God, not the nature of men, which is subject to the order and necessity of such arguments. Nevertheless, to satisfy the weaker ones, we shall respond to these points as well. Tell me, does the radiance of the sun spring from the very nature of the sun itself, or does it flow from somewhere else? It is absolutely necessary, unless you are completely bereft of your senses, to confess that it flows from its nature. Yet, although the radiance proceeds from the nature of the sun, we would not say that it is ^B by nature later than the sun, since the sun would never have existed without its radiance. But if, in these bodies which we perceive and behold with our senses, it is evident that something exists from something else in such a way that it is not later than that from which it is, why do you disbelieve that the same is true in the case of the invisible and ineffable nature, in a manner appropriate to that essence? For it is precisely for this reason that Paul called Him "radiance," in order to demonstrate that He is both from the Father and co-eternal with the Father. What then? Were not all the ages made through Him, and every interval of time? It is necessary, unless you are senseless, to confess this. There is, therefore, nothing intermediate between the Son and the Father. But if nothing intervenes between them, the Son is not later, but co-eternal with the Father. For the words "before" and "after" are concepts indicative of times; separated from age or time, one could not even ^C conceive of these terms. But God is above times and ages. If, therefore, you claim to have grasped a beginning for the Son at all, see lest by this same reasoning and argument you be forced to bring the Father also under a beginning—an older one, to be sure, but a beginning nonetheless. For tell me, do you not propose some boundary and beginning for the Son, and thus, proceeding from it [the beginning] upward, say that the Father precedes Him? It is self-evident. Tell me, then, again: by how much time does the Father pre-exist? For whether you say a small or a great interval, you have brought the Father under a beginning. For having measured, it is clear that you will say the distance between them is either small or great. But measurement cannot occur where there is a beginning on both sides. So that, as far as it depends on you, you have assigned a beginning to the Father as well, and hereafter, ^D according to you, not even the Father will be without beginning.

From the same sequence.

Gladly would I also ask those who contradict this one thing:

^A what, precisely, is the meaning of the words of the prophet: "Before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none"? Will you also abolish the very essence of the Only-Begotten? For one must either dare to say this, or else acknowledge one divinity in the distinct persons of the Father and the Son. And where, pray, is the truth of the statement, "All things were made through him"? For if there is an aeon older than him, how could that which was before him be made through him? Do you see into what audacity those who have once turned away from the path of truth have been led? Why, indeed, did the evangelist not say that he came to be from non-being, just as Paul declares regarding all things, saying: "Calling those things that are not as though they were"? ^B But he says instead, "In the beginning he was." This is indeed the opposite of that, and with good reason. For God neither comes to be, nor does he have anything older than himself. But these are the words of the Greeks. Tell me then this: would you not say that the Creator excels his creatures incomparably? Where, then, would this excellence be, if that which is made from nothing were to be called similar to him? If the Son is not co-eternal with the Father, how will you say that his life is infinite? For if he has a beginning from above, even if he were endless, he would still not be infinite. For that which is infinite must be devoid of boundaries from both sides. This is what Paul revealed when he said: "Having neither beginning of days nor end of life," indicating both the unoriginate and the endless. ^C For just as this has no end, so neither does that. For there is no end on the one side, nor a beginning on the other. And how, being life, was there a time when he was not? For all would confess that life must always be, and must be without beginning and without end, if indeed it truly is life, as it is. But if it is, yet there is a time when it is not, how could it be the life of others if it sometimes did not exist? Why then, you ask, did the evangelist set a beginning by saying: "In the beginning he was"? You pay attention to "In the beginning," but you do not consider what follows. For he says: "In the beginning was the Word." What then, when the Prophet says of the Father: "From everlasting to everlasting you are," does he set boundaries for him by saying so? ^D By no means, but he is declaring the eternal. Understand it in this way here as well. For he did not say this to set boundaries. Nor did he say, "He had a beginning," but, "In the beginning he was," directing you to think of the Son as without beginning. But behold, you say, when he calls the Father God, he adds the article, which he omits when speaking of the Son. What then? When the Apostle says, "of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ," and again, "Who is God over all," does he not add the article when speaking of the Son? And conversely, when speaking of the Father, he omits it, just as when he writes to the Philippians in this manner: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count it robbery to be equal to God." And to the Romans again: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." Moreover, it was superfluous to add the article here, since it had already been consistently added to the Word. For just as when he speaks of the Father, he says, "God is Spirit," and we do not, because the article is not added to "Spirit," deny for that reason the incorporeal nature of the [alt-version omitted]

^A God; so also here, even if the article is not applied to the Son, the Son is not on that account a lesser God. For by saying "God," and "God," he indicates nothing intermediate between us and this divinity, but rather the contrary. For having said beforehand, "And the Word was God," so that no one might think the divinity of the Son to be lesser, he immediately places beside Him the characteristics of His genuine divinity, and His eternity. For, he says, "He was in the beginning with God," and adding the creative power: "For all things," he says, "were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that has been made." This is a mark which His Father also everywhere uses through the prophets for the knowledge of His own essence. And the prophets ^B continually revolve this form of demonstration, and not without cause, but while struggling against the glory of idols. "For the gods," he says, "who did not make the heaven and the earth, shall perish." And again, "I with my hand stretched out the heaven." And he places this everywhere as a sign denoting divinity. But the evangelist himself was not content even with these words, but called Him besides "Life" and "Light." If, therefore, He was always with the Father; if He Himself fashioned all things; if He brought all things forth and sustains them—for this is hinted at through that word, "life"—if He illuminates all things, who is so foolish as to say that the evangelist wished through these words to signify a lesser divinity of the Son, by which it is possible to demonstrate the greatest equality and similarity? Let us not confuse the creation with the Creator, lest we also should hear that "they worshipped the creature ^C rather than the Creator."

Of the same, from the interpretation of the words: "All things were made through Him."

If you think that the preposition "through" is a sign of diminution, listen to Paul saying: "You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the works of Your hands are the heavens." What, therefore, was said of the Father as Creator, this he says of the Son as Creator, and not as one ministering to someone else. And if the "through Him" is used here, it is placed for no other reason than that one might not suspect the Son to be unbegotten. Since, when He has no less standing than the Father regarding the dignity of creation, hear Him saying: "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills." If, therefore, it is said of the Son in the Old Testament also: "You, Lord, founded the earth in the beginning," the dignity of creation ^D is clear. But if you say that the Prophet spoke this of the Father, and that Paul attributed to the Son what was said of the Father, the same result is reached. For Paul would not have established that it was appropriate to the Son, had he not been very confident that they possessed equal dignity. For it would have been of the utmost audacity to attribute to an inferior and lesser nature what is fitting for that nature to which nothing can be compared. But the Son is not inferior, nor is He lesser than the essence of the Father. Therefore, Paul not only dared to say these things, but other things as well—

^A For the expression "From whom," which you grant to the Father as a certain dignity and inheritance alone, he also says of the Son, saying: "From whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, grows with a growth that is from God." And he is not content with this alone, but he also stops your mouths from another direction. Regarding the "Through whom," which you claim for the Father as signifying inferiority, he assigns it to the Father himself: "God is faithful," he says, "by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son." And again: "Through his will." And elsewhere: "For from him and through him and to him are all things." And the "From whom" is not assigned to the Father alone, but also to the Spirit. For the angel said to Joseph: "Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Therefore, just as the prophet does not deem it unworthy to assign the "In whom" to God, saying: "In God we shall perform strength," so likewise does Paul pray, saying: "If somehow I may now at last by the will of God succeed in coming to you." But again he sets this down regarding Christ, saying: "In Christ Jesus." And altogether, we would find these words frequently and quite continuously moved from one person to another. ^B This would not happen if one and the same nature and essence did not underlie them everywhere.

Of the same, from the interpretation of the sentence: "Who is in the bosom of the Father."

The Evangelist makes mention of the "bosom" by this one word to show us that the kinship and proximity of essence is great; that the knowledge is identical, that the power is equal. For the Father would not hold an essence of a different kind in his bosom, nor would he himself, if he were a slave and one of many, dare to rest in the bosom of the Master. For this is the property of the genuine Son alone, who uses great boldness toward the One who begot Him, and has nothing less. Do you wish to understand His eternity? Hear what Moses says concerning the Father. ^C For having asked, if he were asked by the Jews what His name was, and who it was that had sent him, what he was commanded to answer them, he heard this: "Say that 'He who is' has sent me." But "He who is" signifies nothing other than He who always is, and who is without beginning, and who is truly and properly. This same thing is also signified by the words: "In the beginning was." John also uses this same word here, showing that the Son is in the bosom of the Father without beginning and eternally. For lest you think, due to the communion of the name, that he is one of those who become sons by grace, first the article is added, ^D separating Him from those who are so by grace. But if this is not sufficient for you, but you still look downward, hear a name more proper than this: "Only-begotten." But if even after this you look downward, "I will not," he says, "refuse even a human expression if—"

not ashamed, he says, to use some word appropriate to men, although I speak of God. However, so that you do not think anything lowly and abject, I shall speak only of "the bosom," ^A so that you do not suspect anything lowly.

Item against the Arians, from the commentaries of Saint Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John.

What do you say to this, you who bring in to us a new and recent Son, so that he is not believed to be God at all anymore? "For there shall not be in you a recent God," says the Scripture. How then will he not be recent, if he was born in the latest times? How, indeed, would he not have lied to the Jews when saying: "Amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am"? For it escapes no one that many ages after the blessed Abraham, Christ was born of the holy Virgin. How, finally, will that saying, "In the beginning was," remain whole and correctly fit, if the Only-begotten was born at the end of the ages? For see, even from the things that follow, how great an absurdity it is to mutilate the eternal existence of the Son ^B and to suspect that he himself was born in the latest times. But that which the blessed evangelist said, "In the beginning was the Word," comes to be explained by us again more subtly.

There is nothing more ancient than a beginning, if it retains in itself the definition of a beginning. For there will be no beginning of a beginning; or if some other thing is understood or arises before it, it will truly cease to be a beginning. Otherwise, if it is possible that something should exist before that which is truly the beginning, our discourse about it will go on to infinity, as something else always arises prior, and casts behind it the thing that is sought. Therefore, there shall surely be no beginning of a beginning, if we wish to reason ^C truly and exactly, but that which is said about it will proceed into the infinite and incomprehensible. And since that conversion [which looks] backwards lacks a limit and traverses the ages, the Son will be found not to exist in time, but rather to be from eternity with the Father. For "he was in the beginning." But if he was in the beginning, what mind, I pray, will be able to fly over the force of that word, "was"? When, finally, will that "was"—as if it rested at an end—remain, since it always precedes the pursuing thought and runs ahead of the mind? For which reason the astonished ^D prophet Isaiah says: "Who shall declare his generation? For his life is taken from the earth." For the account of the generation of the Only-begotten is truly taken from the earth, that is, it exceeds the mind of all mortals and surpasses every reason, to such an extent that it cannot be declared. But if it exceeds our mind and reason, how will he be created, since it does not exceed the powers of our intellect to circumscribe created things by both time and reason?

Another observation, on [the text], "In the beginning was the Word."

That beginning, to be sure, which is understood in time...

and quantity, does not at all apply to the Only-Begotten. For since He is before all time, and possesses an existence that is pre-eternal, and furthermore because the divine nature refuses to reach an end (for it will always be the same, ^A according to what is sung in the Psalms: "You satisfy yourself as the same, and your years will not fail"), from what beginning, measured to us in time and quantity, will the Son depart, since He does not endure to run toward an end, being as He is by nature God, and for this reason crying out: "I am the life"? For a beginning in itself would not be understood to exist at all, if it did not look toward its own end; since as toward an end, a beginning is named, and again in turn an end is named toward a beginning. But here again we mean by beginning that which is according to time, or quantity. Since therefore the Son is even older than the ages themselves, He cannot have been begotten in time, but was always in the Father as in a source, according to what was said by Him: "I came forth from the Father and have come." ^B The Father, therefore, being understood as the source, the Word was in Him, existing as His wisdom, and power, and character, and radiance, and image. And if there were no time when the Father was without the Word, and wisdom, and character, and radiance, it is necessary to agree that the Son is eternal, who is the same as the eternal Father. For how, pray, is He character, and how exact image, if He is not seen formed toward that beauty of which He is the image? Nor will it obstruct anything at all to conceive of the Son as being in the Father as in a source; for the term "source" here signifies only "that out of which." But the Son is in the Father and from the Father, not having come into being from without or in time, but existing in the substance of the Father, and shining forth from it, just as, for example, radiance from the sun, ^C or as the innate heat from fire. For in such examples, it is possible to see one thing begotten from another, yet always coexisting, and inseparably present, so that without the one, the other cannot exist by itself, and they preserve the true rationale of their own nature. For how is there a sun at all without having radiance? Or how a radiance if there is no sun that radiates it? Or how a fire, if it does not have the power of heating? And whence is the heat, if not from the fire, or perhaps from some other thing that is not far removed from the substantial quality of fire? Just as, then, in these cases, the fact that those which are from them exist within them does not destroy their coexistence, but displays that those which are begotten always run together with those who beget them, and have inherited one nature with them: so too in the case of the Son. ^D For even if He is conceived of and spoken of as being in the Father and from the Father, He will not enter in to us as alien or foreign, or as a second substance after Him, but as existing in Him, and always coexisting, and having shone forth from Him according to the ineffable manner of the divine generation. And that God and Father is spoken of by the saints as the principle of the Son only in the sense of "that out of which," hear the Psalmist concerning the second appearance of our Savior

saying to the Son himself: "With thee is the principle in the day of thy power, in the splendors of thy saints." For the day of the Son's power is that in which He shall judge the whole inhabited world and render to each according to his works. But He will certainly come, He who also exists in the Father and possesses the Father within Himself, maintaining the principle of His own nature which is without principle—that is, merely in the sense of "that out of which," because He is from the Father.

In the beginning was the Word.

To us, many and various meanings of the "beginning" signified here present themselves from every side to those who seek what is profitable, and who, like dogs, are tracking down the true comprehension of divine dogmas and the accurate reasoning of the mysteries; for "Search the Scriptures," says the Savior, "for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which bear witness of me." ^B It seems, therefore, that the blessed Evangelist, by the name of "beginning" here, signifies the power placed above all—the Father, of course—so that the divine nature may appear to be set above all things, having every created thing under its feet, and almost sitting upon those things which have been called into being through it. Therefore, in this beginning which is over all and above all, was the Word—not with all things under His feet, but by nature outside of everything, as a co-eternal fruit, having, if I may say so, a place more ancient than all things: the nature of the One who begat Him. Therefore, also, being a free Son begotten of a free Father, He possesses the empire of the universe together with Him. ^C What then is the sequence of these words, it is worth observing. Some, as we said before, audaciously asserted that the Word of God was first brought into the nature of things when, having assumed the temple of the holy Virgin, He became man for our sake. What, then, will it be, if He is either created or made, and of the same nature as all others, concerning whom the creation from nothing, and the name of servitude, and the reality itself are justly spoken? For what created thing will with impunity refuse to serve the Almighty God? Or what will not be subject to the Almighty principle, power, and dominion, ^D which He Himself also signifies elsewhere, Solomon saying: "For with justice is prepared the throne of power." For that throne of power which is above all is famously and most excellently prepared for justice. And what that throne is, of which we speak here, hear God saying through one of the saints: "Heaven is my throne." Therefore, heaven is prepared for justice—that is, the holy spirits who inhabit the heavens. Since, therefore, it was necessary to confess that the Son, along with other creatures, is subject to God and the Father, as being endowed with a servile condition, and subject to the power of the principle just like other things, if, as they wish, He is begotten late and is one of those who were made in time: it is necessary

^A that the blessed evangelist should attack the heretics more sharply; he vindicates the Son from every servitude, and shows that He flows from the almighty substance, and asserts that He exists in it naturally, saying: *In the beginning was the Word.*

He adds to the term "beginning" the word *was*, usefully, so that He may be understood to be not only glorious, but also begotten before the ages. For *was* is placed here so that the mind of the one contemplating may be directed toward a certain deep, incomprehensible, and ineffable generation that transcends all times. For the *was*, pronounced indefinitely, to what place will it bring us, since it always anticipates the pursuing mind by its own nature, and what you might have thought to be the rest of it, this makes the beginning of a further course? ^B *The Word, therefore, was in the beginning*, that is, as in a beginning which is over all things, and existing naturally from it, and endowed with the Lord’s own majesty. But if this is true, how will He be created or made? And where, generally, the *was* exists, in what manner will the *was not* intrude? Or what place will the *was not* finally have against the Son?

*From the same, from his discourse on the Trinity.*

If He was never [at a time] when He was not, he says, but the Son is eternal, and co-exists with the Father, do not call Him Son any longer, but brother, saying that He is co-eternal, and we say that He is Son. If, indeed, He were simply co-eternal, and not Son, your suspicion ^C might have had room. Since, however, we confess Him to be both eternal and Son, how can the Son be a brother to His begetter?

*From the same discourse.*

If our faith is in the Father and the Son, and we are baptized in this way, what brotherhood appears in this? Or how can the Word be the brother of Him whose Word He is?

*And this.*

The Father and the Son were not begotten from some pre-existing principle so that they might be thought of as brothers, but the Father is the beginning of the Son, and begets the Son, and remains Father, and is not called the son of anyone; and the Son is Son, and remains what He is, and is not called the brother of anyone by nature. What place, therefore, will brotherhood have in these? ^D

*And this.*

If the Father is perfect, that which is from Him will also be perfect. And if, in addition to this, He possesses eternity, that which is from the eternal Father will also be eternal, not being something added to the essence of the begetter, but always co-existing with it, and not imperfect because of having been made in time, as some say, but perfect because it is before all time.

*And this.*

The contrary argument, which seems to overthrow the eternity of the Son, is not true as follows. If, he says, the divine nature does not admit of being divided, because it is not subject to passion. For those [natures] to which suffering belongs by nature, to these is

^A also the fact of being cut suitable. We must not say that the Son is [from] the essence of the Father, lest some passion and division appear in that simple nature. For if the thing which has proceeded from something else is altogether a different thing in number from that from which it came forth, a certain cutting and division is seen in the divine nature, unless we allow that the Son has proceeded from it, not from without, but truly of it. But if He is from without, He has happened [to the Father], and is not co-eternal with the Father. It is foolish and ignorant to attribute the properties of bodies to an incorporeal essence. For in the case of bodies, it is fitting to speak of passion occurring, and cutting, and division; but in the case of the incorporeal ^B nature, nothing of the kind exists. God is incorporeal, and begets without being divided, and generates without being cut. Since even fire generates light from itself, yet undergoes no division, even if in thought the light coming from it might seem separated from it. But if anyone cannot contemplate that which is void of body, without subjecting it to corporeal necessities, let him blame the weakness of his own mind, by which, being hindered, he cannot understand [things] congruent to an incorporeal nature. And again, those who cannot understand the eternal generation of the Son from the eternal Father, and therefore subject Him to the conditions of bodies because He lacks a body, let them also deny the Father, since they cannot find what nature He is or how great He is. But if those things which are above us are grasped by faith, it is well; and the generation of the Son is above us. ^C For the generation of Him, as the Prophet says (Isa. LIII, 8), who shall declare? Let this also be perceived by faith, and let that cease: *He was not*, which is brought forth from the infirmity of human reason. And these things.

If God and Father is light, in Him was His splendor. If the Son is the figure of the Father's substance, as Paul says (Heb. I, 3), let those who dare to affirm of Him that *He was not*, say when the substance of the Father was without a figure. For the figure of the same exists simultaneously with the substance. If the Son is truth and wisdom, when was He not with the Father, in whom truth and wisdom are always in God and Father? And these things.

If the Father is beheld in the Son, and the Son is the most certain image of the essence of the Father who begat Him, according to what is said by Him (John XIV, 9): *He who has seen Me has seen the Father*, it is necessary that He have by nature all things which the Father has. For thus ^D the image will be most absolute. But the Father is immortal, king, procreator, omnipotent, God, creator, [and] the Son is likewise. Otherwise, if He had been made, or had at some time not been, that which is eternal and always is would not be seen expressed in Him. For images always bear the similitude of the archetype.

From the same, from the second book of the Treasury, on these words: *Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus* (Heb. III, 1). Paul did not say these things declaring the nature of the Word,

^A but rather the economy according to the flesh. For when did He become the High Priest of our confession? When did He become Apostle? When did He become faithful to Him who made Him? Was it not when, for our sake and on our behalf, He became man, and according to the voice of John, "The Word became flesh"? Then, as man, He became faithful to His Maker, accomplishing His work, even as He Himself said; then He became Apostle, sent for our sake and on our behalf; then He became the High Priest of our confession, offering the confession of our faith to the Father, and bringing His own body as an unblemished sacrifice, that He might cleanse us all through it. If, therefore, it is said concerning the Son that He became faithful, that He became Apostle, that He became High Priest, let the statement not be referred ^B to His essence, but to the quality of the facts. For Paul also, being and already existing as a man, became an apostle; and Moses likewise became faithful in all His house, and Aaron likewise became high priest, in himself already long ago prefiguring the Savior. For in the way that Aaron was not born a high priest, but became so many times later, putting on the full-length robe, the ephod, and the other garments of priestly attire which were the work of women—in the same way also it is to be understood concerning Christ. For the Word was in the beginning, but many times later He became our High Priest, as if having put on the man from the woman, that is, the passible nature, like a full-length robe; that by His own blood He might cleanse the people, offering Himself to God as an unblemished lamb: "For He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth." (1 Pet. II, 22)

From the same book on the words, "God made Him both Lord and Christ."

God made Him Lord and Christ, not by bringing Him from non-existence into being; for the Word of God was always, even before the incarnation; and one who thinks rightly would not interpret the word "made" here as referring to His essence, lest he be forced into impiety ^C, saying that the Word of God began to exist then for the first time, when He became man; but the word "made" must be understood as "demonstrated" or "shown." Thus, Peter himself, conversing with the Jews, said: "Jesus the Nazarene, a man demonstrated by God to you by powers and wonders and signs, as you yourselves know." (Acts II, 22) Therefore, by showing through His works the dignity of the Father existing within Him, He becomes the Lord of those who have believed in Him; and it is demonstrated that He is also the Christ. For it is for this reason He said to the unbelieving Jews: "Even if you do not believe Me, believe My works, that you may know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me." (John X, 38) And again: "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me." If, then, because He is able to do the works of the Father, and has the Father in Himself, and is likewise in the Father, He is demonstrated to be true God, by this rationale He becomes the Lord ^D of those who believe in Him, de-

-^Amonstrated also as being Christ Himself; but if He is said to have been made Lord by God, this also is rightly held. For being recognized through His works as the genuine and true offspring of God, He is lord over those who formerly disobeyed, being testified to as God by His own dignity and by the nobility from the Father. For since He was entirely known to be the Son of God, He also became Lord, not then first beginning to be Lord (for He was always both God and Lord), but when He was known by those who believed, then He became Lord also over them.

From the same book on the words: "Glorify Thy Son."

The Savior speaks somewhere when conversing with His own Father: "Father, the hour has come, glorify Thy Son." If, therefore, He knows exactly the hour which He says has come, what prevents Him from knowing that other [hour] which He says, as man, that He is ignorant of, because it befits humanity, yet which He knows absolutely as God? But one must not, on account of this utterance, accuse the Word of God or rashly impute any ignorance to Him; but rather one should marvel at the love with which He burned for the human race, moved by which He did not refuse to descend to such great humility, so as to take upon Himself all that is ours, among which is also ignorance.

^CWe must ask the enemies of Christ: why, when the Savior named the angels and the Son, did He nowhere mention the Spirit? For He did not say: "The Spirit does not know," but, "The angels do not know, nor does the Son know," and this simply; for He did not add "of God." It is manifest, therefore, that He said the angels were ignorant as being creatures. But since He did not wish to tell the disciples, for some ineffable reason of divine dispensation—"For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?"—so that He might not seem to wish to hide it from them and on that account cause them sorrow, He said that not even the Son knew this; speaking of Himself in a human manner, as a man, while preserving for Himself the knowledge of all things as God. For that reason, He did not say that the Spirit was ignorant. For if the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God, as it is written, He surely knows all things that are in Him. But if the Spirit, who knows all things and is able to search out all things, receives from the Son—"He," He says, "shall receive of Mine"—how will the Son be considered ignorant, He who supplies all things to the all-knowing Spirit?

From the same book on the words: "But of that day or hour."

If all things which the Father has are the Son's, as He Himself testifies, and the Father knows that final day and hour, the Son certainly knows it also. For thus He will truly have said: "All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine."

From the same book on the words: "And has given all things into His hand."

The Son is not said to have received from the Father because He did not have it beforehand. For He has it naturally, being Himself ^D[of the same nature].

^A His own proper Word and splendor, all things that are the Father’s: except for the fact that He neither is, nor is called, Father. And He says He has received from the Father, anticipating and removing, as God, the suspicion of heretics. For lest anyone, observing that the Son has all things that are the Father's, should—by reason of this very great similarity and unchangeable identity—imagine that the Father and the Son are the same, and fall into the error of Sabellius, He very usefully says that He received from the Father, though He has this naturally; so that the Word, by introducing one who gives and a second who receives, might manifest a duality of persons in distinct hypostases, not distinguished by names alone. But being the proper Word of the Father, and proceeding from His essence, He has from eternity all things that are the Father's. Yet He says He received them ^B from Him because He proceeds from Him, while otherwise He naturally has all things that are in the Father.

And this. The Savior says somewhere: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He also gave to the Son to have life in Himself:" which is fitting to understand thus. For by saying "He gave," He signifies that He has it from the Father naturally, and shows himself to be hypostatically other than the One who gave; other, I say, in number only. But by saying, "As the Father has, so also the Son has," He clearly teaches that, just as the Father has life in Himself from eternity, so also the Son has life in Himself from eternity.

And this. ^C If one were to attribute speech to the splendor of light, and then have it say: "The light gave me all things that it has; for I illuminate just as it does"—would anyone rightfully say that the splendor at one time did not have the power to illuminate? And how then could it be splendor? But if, since it always has the power to illuminate, because it holds all things that are in the light, and is generated from it, it is said to have received from it: how would it not be absurd to be unwilling to understand something more regarding the Word of God than from this example? For since He has all things naturally from the Father, He says He received from Him because He was begotten of Him, along with all things that He has.

Excerpts from the same book, an objection of the Arians to the verse: ^D "That they may know You, the only true God." "Behold," they say, "the Son Himself confesses that the Father alone is the true God." And the Father Himself also is found saying: "I am the first God, I am also after these things, and there is no God besides Me." How then do you introduce the Son to the first and only and truly existing God and Father, as if He also were God by nature? "It is necessary to know, first, that the Father does not say such things to do away with the Son. For what would prompt Him to come to this? If indeed He acts like a man contending with one who has proceeded from him, just as David, when fought by his own sons—then such indignation might seem plausible. But if there is no such thing in nature

^A of divine sedition, no battle can exist, but rather it appears that the Son always attributes glory to the Father. What reason, then, is there for us to suspect that the Father spoke those words in order to abolish the Son, and not rather to confess that He spoke them to overthrow false gods? Furthermore, when the Savior said: "That they may know thee the only true God," He immediately joins Himself to Him: "And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," as one who is not separated from the substance of the Father, as far as the account of divinity is concerned, but is always perceived with the Father.

From the same book on the words, "Jesus advanced."

What advances in something is different from that in which it is said to advance. If, therefore, He is said to advance in wisdom, it was not wisdom that advanced, but the human element within it. ^B For as His divinity was revealed and manifested day by day, He always appeared more admirable to those who beheld Him. And this is what is meant by the words: "He advanced in wisdom."

On the same words.

His humanity advanced in wisdom in this way: Wisdom (that is, the Word of God), having put on human nature, making the temple He had chosen and assumed—through deeds and wondrous accomplishments—appear divine to the eyes of those who beheld Him, caused it to advance. And thus, the humanity, rendered divine through wisdom, did advance.

And this.

Since to grow is proper to the flesh, it is said that He grew as one having become in it, and as one who had taken on its own affections; for the flesh was of none other than the Word Himself. And just as we say that He suffered in the flesh, although the flesh alone suffered, because, ^C although He did not suffer as God, yet the suffering body was His own, so also even if He is said to advance, though accepting no advancement as God, He is said to advance because His own flesh was advancing in Him.

From the same book on the words, "Father, glorify me."

And how, they say, is it not absurd to say that the Son is similar in substance to the Father, when He Himself seeks glory from the Father? For He says: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." For if He asks while possessing it, He appears to do so rashly and in vain; but if He does not possess it, it is manifest from this that He is not as great as the Giver from whom He seeks to receive it.

Those who examine the force of words accurately and diligently weigh the meaning of each ^D clearly, understand the name of "glory" in two ways. For sometimes they conceive that it ought to be taken for honor, and at other times they apply it to knowledge; just as if someone were to ask what one might think regarding the sun, or some other element, whether these things are created or uncreated; he who rightly thinks and feels will surely say that they are created. Therefore

even the knowledge of some existing things is called ^A *glory* by those who understand the properties and meanings of names. When, therefore, the Son is found saying: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was," the expression must be understood in this way: Since, he says, O Father, having become man by the dispensation, I am thought to be only that which I appear to be, and by many I am not known as the Son existing from eternity, *glorify me*—that is, *manifest me*, instilling into men such knowledge concerning me as they would hold if they could hear that I existed even before the foundation of the world, namely, that I am by nature God, light from light, truth having proceeded from the true Father. We shall know this especially through the context. For "glorify me," he says, is instead of "make me manifest," since I also have manifested thy name to men. If, therefore, he wishes for himself that which he has done, and he glorified the Father by manifesting him to men, he also wishes to be glorified, by being made manifest by the Father to men. And ^B the argument of the Christ-opponents is superfluous, who claim that the Son was in need of honor or glory.

From the same book, sixteen selections of the sentiments of the Apostles, by which he demonstrates that the Son is God by nature, not a work, nor a creature.

Concerning those who do not know how to repent for their own offenses, but have fastened upon themselves, as it were, an unbreakable bond of wickedness, Paul says: "But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds." Then again to others: "For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done through the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad." ^C If, therefore, we all shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ (for "neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son"), and he himself will render to each according to his deeds, how will he not be God by nature, when Paul says that there will be a revelation of the righteous judgment of God—the sentence, that is, placed by him upon each of those judged—so that he will say to the wicked indeed: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire," and to the workers of piety toward him: "Come, ye blessed of my Father," and so forth.

Defending those who are justified through faith in Christ, Paul says: "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Is God only of the Jews? Is he not also of the gentiles? Yea of the gentiles also. If it is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith, ^D and the uncircumcision through faith." We find Christ doing this. For promising that he will justify those who believe in him, he says: "Amen, I say to you, he that believeth in me is not judged, but hath eternal life." If, however, it is fitting for God alone to justify, since

^A Christ justifies, how shall he not be God by nature? But if this is so, how shall he not be a creature?

Paul says somewhere else regarding our forefather Abraham: "Who is the father of us all, as it is written: I have made thee a father of many nations, before God, whom he believed, who quickeneth the dead." ^B Since, therefore, God is said to make the dead alive, and then the Son says: "I am the life," and, "He that believeth in me hath life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day," and again: "I am the resurrection and the life"; who would not acknowledge, if he be of sound mind, that he exists from the essence of the Father, being his own true Son, naturally bearing in himself all the properties of the One who begat him? But if this is true, then God is from God, and not in truth a work or a creature.

Declaring himself to be an administrator and minister of divine mysteries, Paul says: "But I have written to you more boldly, brothers, in part, as it were bringing you to your memory, because of the grace which is given me from God, that I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles, sanctifying the Gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified in the Holy Ghost." Behold, here too he clearly asserts that he received from God, through grace, the office of being a minister of Christ Jesus. Then, explaining the nature of his holy ministry, he says: "unto the Gospel of God." And yet, while preaching and evangelizing Christ Jesus, he thus knows the Son to be God by nature. For he would not have named him God, were he not such by nature; ^C nor would he have boasted so greatly about this matter, saying: "It pleased God to reveal his Son in me," if he were a creature and a work.

For if they had known it, he says, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; if, therefore, the Son who endured the cross for us is the Lord of glory, how is he not God by nature? Or how is he a creature or a work, he who is also hymned and celebrated by the Seraphim, who say that heaven and earth are full of his glory, and who call him Lord of Sabaoth? For it is clear that they say these things about him, if he is indeed the Lord of glory, according to the words of Paul.

"Let a man so account of us," he says, "as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." If, therefore, Paul calls the mystery concerning the Son the mystery of God, how shall he not be God by nature, ^D or how shall he be numbered among creatures, he to whom the apostles minister? And how would he not speak the truth, calling the Gospel of Christ the mystery of God, he who said with great confidence of spirit: "For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ"? Since, therefore, being taught by God, he recognizes the Son to be God, who would listen to the heretics?

"Therefore," he says, "judge not before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of dar-

darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise of God." And in the Gospels it is written that at the last day Christ will separate the sheep from the goats, and will place the sheep on the right hand, but the goats on the left; and those who are workers of iniquity he will send into everlasting fire, but to those who occupy the place on the right he will give praises together with rewards, saying: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." If, therefore, God is to bestow praises upon those who practice virtue, and it is Christ who gives the praise, how can he be a creature, and not rather God from God, possessing the whole property of the paternal essence, and for this reason being God by nature, just as the One who begat him? ^B

"For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead." Behold, here again he says clearly that it is God who raises the dead. But Christ does this, saying in one place: "I am the resurrection and the life"; and in another: "He that believeth in me hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The Son, therefore, is God by nature, since he has the power to do the things which befit God alone. Therefore, he is not a product, nor a creature.

"Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place." Who could be manifested through the apostolic and evangelical preachings other than Christ? He himself is, of course, the savour of the knowledge of God and the Father, according to what was said by him: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me," and again: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." ^C Since, therefore, he is the savour of the Father, he is not different in essence from him; but just as the sweet scent of flowers naturally and essentially flows forth from them and is declarative of the kind from which it was born, so also the Son is as it were a savour of the paternal essence, from which he is, and he himself reveals his Begetter. Therefore, he is not a product, nor a creature, since the Father is not such a thing.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Let us see, therefore, what is said concerning the Son by the one who learned the mystery of him from Christ himself: "Jesus Christ," he says, "the same yesterday, and today, and for ever." ^D Behold how clearly he confesses that the Son rests in an immutable and unchangeable nature, which is a property of God and the Father alone, and does not belong to any created being. Therefore, if the God and Father alone is immutable, but his Son [is also immutable]...

^A, being always what the One who begat him is, how could he be one of the created things, he who alone, according to the ineffable principle of essence, rivals the One who produced him, and who is by nature that which the Father is, with the sole exception of not being the Father?

"Brethren, I beseech you, you have done me no wrong; you know that it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." ^B Paul, kissing and greatly admiring the piety of the Galatians toward God and their love toward him, after having said, "You received me as an angel of God," ascends to something much greater by adding, "as Christ Jesus." But as to how Christ is superior to the angels, he himself teaches us, saying: "When he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship him.'" And again: "To which of the angels did he ever say, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'? And, 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'?" It is written also concerning the angels: "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire." Since, therefore, there is such a difference between them, that the Son is indeed worshipped, while the angels minister to him; and that the one sits in the order of King and Son and Lord, while the others are sent forth for service ^C, how shall he not be God, who is known by the angels themselves to be such by nature? For if he is a creature, according to the foolish opinion of the heterodox, it would be time to say that not only we have been deceived, but also the very powers in the heavens themselves, in that they have worshipped the creature rather than the Creator. But if this is absurd (for no one would say that the holy angels have been deceived; rather, the knowledge of God in them is true, and they worship the Son as being God by nature), then he is not a creature, nor a thing made. For that which has been made in any way could not be God by nature.

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast." If it is the work of a Lord to set free, and Christ sets us free and delivers us from the yoke of slavery, calling us to sonship, he is not himself a slave but a Son and Lord; and what he is by nature, he bestows upon those who are worthy by grace. ^D "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Since the Lord God and Father is one, how shall the Son be Lord if he is a creature or a thing made? For it is manifest that all created things have a servile nature. And how, since there is one faith, does he who believes in the Son believe in the Father, if, according to the madness of certain people, he is separated from the natural conjunction with the Father? Yet, since the Father is...

^A manifestly the Father, and the Son exists naturally in the Father, and in turn has the Father within Himself, He is spoken of as God and glorified together with Him. And thus the faith of those who approach ascends to one Godhead. How, then, shall He be numbered among creatures, He who has all things in common with the Father, as the true fruit of His essence, and not like us, who are adopted sons and engrafted shoots?

«Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us, and delivered Himself for us.» ^B Observe again how he knows and names Christ as God. For when he had said we must be imitators of God, he immediately puts Him forward, and teaches how one ought to imitate [Him], saying: «As Christ also loved us, and gave Himself for us.» Since, therefore, Christ is truly God and is called so by Him to whom the Gospel was entrusted by God and the Father, who could endure those who speak otherwise? But how could He who is God by nature be a work or a creature?

«For this know, understanding that every fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolater, has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.» ^C Behold again, having named Christ, he immediately brings in God also, since God and the Father reigns in Him, and He in turn in the Father, according to that which was said by Him to the Father: «All things that are mine are Thine, and Thine are mine.» But the kingdom of all is one; common indeed to the Son with the Father, and common to the Father with the Son, with of course the Holy Spirit reigning together with them. For so the holy and adorable Trinity is gathered into the one nature of the Godhead. How, then, is the Divine Word, reigning in the Father and with the Father, a creature?

«Let no one deceive you with empty words. For because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.» ^D And who could the sons of disobedience be, if not entirely those who have broken away from the laws of the Savior through sinning? But if He who inflicts wrath upon them is the Savior Himself, saying: «Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire»; and the blessed Paul knows Him to be God, and introduces Him as such, who could endure those who say He is a creature?

Of the same, from his commentaries on the Gospel according to John, against the Arians who say that the indwelling Word of God is distinct from the Son.

We find, he says, that the Son is someone other than the indwelling Word, and we persuade ourselves of this not by our own opinions, but led by the testimonies of the Holy Scripture. For when we hear the Son saying thus

^A to the Father: "Father, glorify thy Son," and the Father in turn answering thus: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again," do we not altogether concede that the Father made answer to the Son in the Word? How then is this Word, by which the Father speaks to the Son, not distinct from the Son himself? What could be more wretched than these people, if they suppose that this voice, which not only the Saviour heard, but the very multitude of the Jews and the company of the disciples themselves, was truly and properly the voice of the Father? It were more fitting, surely, to contemplate things more excellent and more becoming to God, than to try to subject things that are above us to our own laws. For a corporeal voice strikes the bodily ear with its impact, but the counsel of the Father, which is uttered in an ineffable voice and, as it were, revolves in the mind, is known only to the Son, who exists naturally in Him, as being His wisdom. ^B But to suppose that God uses a voice that is uttered with noise is altogether implausible, if indeed we wish to preserve for the nature that is above all things what is beyond creation. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself did not say that it was the voice of God and the Father; nor did He show that He, to understand the counsel of the Father, was in need of an interpreter. Therefore, He says: "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes." Otherwise, He ought to have said: "Did you hear with me the voice of the Father?" But now He says that He Himself was in no need of that voice, and asserts that it was made for their sake, not that it was uttered by the Father. And if God and the Father does all things through Him, then this, too, was certainly done through Him. For He Himself was the voice, not explaining to Himself ^C the will of the Begetter, for as Son He knew it, but to the ears of those standing by, so that they might believe.

And this also. Hear the Evangelist saying: "This was in the beginning with God." For in these words the Evangelist has, as it were, summarized some of the things said before. And by adding this "This," he seems in a way to cry out: "That which is in the beginning, the Word which is with the Father, and God from God, this is He of whom we are presently undertaking to write." It does not seem to me that he added these words in vain: "This was in the beginning with God." For being enlightened by the divine Spirit to perceive the knowledge of things to come, he was not ignorant—as it seems to me, and as one may truly say—that there would be certain workers of perdition, snares of the devil, children of death, ^D who would say that the Word indwelling in God and the Father is one thing, and that another being, very similar and most like to the indwelling Word, is the Son and Word, through whom God does all things; so that a word of a word is imagined, and an image of an image, and a brightness of a brightness. As if the blessed Evangelist had already heard these impious men, and was justly moved by the absurd madness of their writings, having already defined, and having indicated at length, as was fitting, that the one and only and true Word is from God, and in God, and with God, he cries out with a terrible voice: "This," he says, "in the beginning"

^A was with God," as Son of course with the Father, as innate, as from his very essence this Only-begotten, with no second [being] existing.

Of the same, from the 14th chapter of the first book of the *Thesaurus*, on the words: "So he gave to the Son also to have life in himself."

But how, they ask, could the Son be similar to the Father in essence, or how will he not be posterior to him, receiving something from him, as he himself says: "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself"? Nothing, my good men, harms the essence of the Word in receiving something from the Father. For he does not have his existence in the receiving of it, but being and existing beforehand, he receives something, ^B since, having been naturally begotten from the Father, he brings with him all that is proper to the Father; just as if light proceeding from the sun were said to receive something from it, because everything that is in it is seen to belong to the sun that produced it, and nowhere will one be forced to conclude that the sun existed before the radiance, even though the radiance, having proceeded from him indivisibly, receives from him—as it were—to bear his own property; but it was always with him, and flowing from him, what was present to him was naturally borne. Therefore, the fact that he receives something from the Father will not necessarily force the Son to be second in time. For one gives to something that is and exists, not to something that is not and has not yet come to be.

On the same.

If the Son is not life by nature, how will he speak the truth, saying: "He who believes in me has eternal life"? And again: "My sheep hear my voice. And I give to them eternal life." And again: "He who believes in me shall never taste death." For he ought to have said: "He who believes in me will receive from me life, which the Father has given to me." And again: "The Father will not permit the one who believes in me to taste death." But if he is not seen to have said this, but promises that he will give to those who believe in him the life that is in him by nature and essentially, how can it be understood that the Son, not having life, ^C received it from the Father? For this would be more grievous than any blasphemy. But, as has already been said, proceeding from the Father, he brings with him all that is his by nature, and in the manner by which he has received it, he is spoken of as radiance and image of him. And one of the things present to the Father is also life.

On the same.

When the Son says, "For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself," he clearly shows the undistorted similarity which he has with the one who begot him. For he has life in this way, just as the Father does—naturally, of course, and es^Dsential.

and essential. ^A But when he adds that word, "He gave," he signifies a natural and essential procession. For the Father did not give, as if taking away something from those things which are in Him and adding it to the Son who has it not, just as happens in bodily divisions and distances, where something locally divided is transferred from one to another; but just as a plant propagates its own natural quality into the fruit which proceeds from it, so also is the Son understood to have received from the Father the things that are in Him, being everything that the Father is, except for this one thing alone: that He is the Father.

On the same words.

On the same words.

On the same words.

On the same sentiment.

is said to have immortality, for He has in Himself the Son, who says: "I am the life." If, therefore, everything that is proper to the Father is this very thing which is the Son, when it is said that the Father has life in Himself, it signifies the Son, and nothing different from Him. Existing, however, Himself also in the Son according to the immutability of the essence, and being life by nature, He has given Himself to Him. ^A

In the same vein.

The Son, existing as life by nature, says that He receives this from the Father, not inasmuch as He is the Word or the radiance having the properties of the Father by nature, but inasmuch as He has become man, to whom all things are given by God. He will make this clear in what follows, explaining the cause of why it was given. For, He says, "He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man." But if, because He is the Son of man, He is said to have received the authority to judge, we, repeating the same argument, will say: Since He has become the Son of man, bearing the likeness of those who are such that they receive everything from God, He is also said to have received life, while reserving to the sole and naked divine nature that which is incapable of any participation, and that which is able to grant all things to all. ^B

From the work of the same on the Holy Trinity.

That the Son can do the same things as the Father may be learned from elsewhere. For on one occasion He says: "My Father is working until now, and I am working"; and on another: "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills." He said "whom He wills," not "whom He is commanded"; "whom He chooses," not "whom He is ordered"; for the former is proper to servitude, the latter to lordship. And again elsewhere: "If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me; but if I do them, even if you do not want to believe me, believe the works, and know that the Father is in me, and I in Him." Behold again from this the equality of the Father and the Son; for, He says, "The Father is in me, and I in Him." But in the case of a greater ^C and a lesser, to find this is utterly impossible. And I shall now demonstrate this. Universal God encompasses in Himself all creation, both visible and invisible, or rather, He holds it in His hand: "For in His hand," He says, "are all the ends of the earth." And again: "He who holds the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants [are] like grasshoppers." And elsewhere: "Who has measured the water with His hand, and the heaven with a span, and the whole earth with a fist?" Therefore, the Creator of all, as I said, holds all creation in His hand; but for Him to be contained by creation is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for unequal things to contain one another. But if this is true, as it is in reality, and the Son contains the Father, just as the Father contains the Son, the assertion of inequality is clearly exploded, and equality is recognized in the Father and the Son. ^D

The same, and on this same matter.

^A How great is the insanity of the heretics, and what a thunderstruck state of mind do the heirs of the blasphemy of Arius and Eunomius suffer from! And in addition to this insanity, one can see a great impudence flourishing in them. For they mention "mission" over and over, and claim that the one who sent is more honorable than the one who was sent. Such is their ignorance of the Scriptures! And they do not reason how Jacob was sent by Isaac into Mesopotamia; yet he was not, on that account, lesser than the one who sent him according to the order of nature. Similarly, Joseph was sent by Jacob to visit his brothers, and no one would say that he did not share in his father's nature just because he accepted the mission in obedience to his father.

^B But perhaps they say, "Even if the sent are not lesser than those who send them in the order of nature, they at least yield to the paternal dignity in terms of the honor of the priority." But I would say to those fools: We find even those who are greater being sent by those who are lesser, and we do not, for that reason, strip those who were sent of their own dignity. For Jonathan, the king’s son, was sent by David—the son by the fugitive, he who reigned with his father by one who did not even dare appear in the rank of a servant. Since, therefore, the one was sent—yet he who was sent was no longer a king according to your definition—and the one who sent was no longer a fugitive, but the dignity of the one sent descended to the one who sent him, David, and the calamity of the one who sent descended to the one who was sent, Jonathan. But what need is there to recount human affairs, when we find God being sent, and man sending? ^C For He who wrestled with Jacob says, "Let me go, for the dawn approaches." To whom Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me." What will those wise craftsmen of the faith have to say to this?

Furthermore, we find from the words of the Master that the Father who sent is Himself with the Son who was sent. "For I am not alone," He says, "but I and the Father who sent me." And elsewhere: "The Father who sent me has not left me alone." And from another passage: "My Father who abides in me, He does the works." If, therefore, the one who sent was in Him and with Him, where is the lowliness of the condition of the one who was sent? And from where, or to where, can He who fills all things be sent? ^D For "mission" implies a change of place. But if the Father and the Son contain all things, and the Father is not far off from those to whom the Son is sent, nor does the Son move from one place to another, it remains, therefore, to understand the mission as referring to the humanity that was assumed.

The same, and on this same matter.

"Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you." O the singular and incredible stupidity of the heretics! "Greater," they say, "is the one who bestows glory than the one who receives it." And the Father bestows, but the Son is bestowed upon; therefore, the Father is greater than the Son. If so—

according to the logic of those who say this, if the one who bestows glory transitions to being greater, the Son will be ^A found to be inferior when he is glorified, and greater when he bestows glory. But to say these things is the height of stupidity and madness. For we are not taught from this that the Father is greater than the Son or vice versa, but rather the equality of the Father and the Son. For just as the Father both bestows glory upon the Son and is glorified by the Son, so the Son is both glorified by the Father and bestows glory upon the Father. And that he receives nothing when he is glorified which he did not possess before, he teaches in this passage: "Glorify me," he says, "Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world was." But if he had this glory before the world was made, how does he ask to receive what he always had?

And this. Then, showing that he not only receives glory but also bestows it, he added: "I have manifested your name to men." And a little later, stopping the mouths of the heretics: "All mine," he says, "are yours, and yours are mine," not dividing the shared dominion, nor wishing to show that some things belong to himself and others to the Father; but since those who, casting every blasphemous utterance against the Only-Begotten, say that he himself receives, while the Father gives, he shows that he possesses the same dominion over all things as the Father. For "All mine," he says, "are yours, and yours are mine," teaching not the division of dominion, but the commonality of authority.

The same, from the 6th chapter of the first book of the *Thesaurus*. That which naturally has the capacity to beget does not attain this by a process, as if it did not have it at one time, nor does it lose it and cease to beget. For instance, fire begets from itself that heat and brightness which naturally belong to it, and it did not come into this state from not being hot, nor will it cease to begetting its natural properties; but as soon as it is fire, its own properties are with it. If, therefore, such a mode of generation is perceived even in things created by God, is it not impious not to attribute greater things to God himself in all respects, even if the human mind does not reach the comprehension of his great nature?

And this. If the Son were not with the Father, being both from him by nature and co-eternal, and if existence just "happened" to him, then clearly it would also have happened to the Begetter to become a Father, and some change and alteration would appear to have taken place in him. For if he was not, according to you, he later became this. But the divine nature is insusceptible to all change and alteration. It did not, therefore, "happen" to God to become a Father, but the Word who proceeded from him was co-eternal with him, just as heat in fire naturally proceeds from it and always co-exists with it.

And this. "If the Father," he says, "is perfect in his own greatness—" ^D

^A and nothing is wanting to his nature, it is superfluous to add the Son as if he were the fullness of his divinity.

*Of the same, and this.*

The Father is indeed perfect in his own greatness, and no one of sound mind will deny this; but he is perfect, not merely because he is God, but also because he is Father. For if you take away from God his being Father, you will destroy the fruit-bearing capacity of the single nature, so that it may no longer have perfection, lacking as it would that which begets. Fruit-bearing, therefore, is a mark of perfection, and the Son, who proceeds from him without time, is the seal of the Father’s being perfect.

*And this.*

If the fruit-bearing capacity is not naturally inherent in the Father’s essence, and he is perfect even without being able to beget, then this is superfluous and adventitious to him, or rather, he stands in need of it. But how is he perfect who lacks some thing? Or how is it not absurd to add something to the divine nature, as if it did not possess perfection naturally of itself?

*From the sixth chapter of the same book.*

Withdraw your thought, excellent man, for a little while from bodies and the affections of bodies. For our discourse is about God. Do not suppose that God, in the manner of men, is diminished by efflux when he begets, nor that he cannot beget without detriment, or that the Word proceeding out of him is in any way divided. For why would this detestable reasoning not forbid one to use the same logic regarding the other attributes he possesses? For if he begets as a man does, with flux, he will also create as a man does, with labor. But if this is absurd—for he does not create as a man does—then neither does he beget as a man does; but in this, too, he will surpass the nature of man, begetting without division as God. ^C

*Of the same, and this.*

The Father produced the Son from himself without division or interval, just as the sun produces the brightness that is sent out from it. And yet, that brightness does not have its own subsistence, nor is it perfect in itself as an essence—for it has its being in the sun; but the divine offspring, while having only this from the example, that it proceeds from the Father without division and without interval, possesses an individual existence, not separated from the Father, but understood and existing in the Father and with the Father. To say, however, that a section or cutting has occurred in his divine generation is a sign of boundless madness. ^D For since the divine is not circumscribed by place, neither is that which proceeds from it in place. But that which is not in place, nor can be, how can it admit of division? For where would that which is divided depart? Or from where to where would it be transferred? For these things are proper to bodies, but are altogether alien to the incorporeal nature. Therefore, let no one impiously imagine, in the divine generation, flows, separations, and whatever has an affinity to these things. For that nature which is supreme over all is subject to no passion, separation, or section.

But just as it creates in a wonderful way, and far differently than the manner our custom brings forth, so too does it beget from itself in a way other than we do.

And this.

The uttered word which we use is begotten in the mind and from the mind, and it seems to be something other than that which is stirred in the heart, in that it is sent forth outside the mouth as if from the depths into the light; yet it is again in it, and like it in all respects. For it is possible to see in that word the thought called the "reasoning" of the heart, and again in the mind the word still kept in silence. So also the Son of God, having proceeded from the Father without division, is the character and likeness of his own property, being an hypostatic Word and living from a living Father.

And this.

Thus the Father begat the Son from himself without division, as if some wise man were to bring forth a wise conception—let us say, a mechanical one, or a geometrical one, or another of such kinds. For such things seem to be the fruit of wisdom, and they are like this by nature; but the art devised from wisdom is not separated from the wisdom itself. Rather, it is from it and in it, expressing the image of its parent, and without division it seems to be something other than it. So too, the generation of the Son, being from the Father without division, is preserved in its own hypostasis, yet surpassing by far the power of this example or likeness.

From the seventh chapter of the same book.

If you say that the Son has been begotten by an act of will, and you insist ^B that the will concerning him preceded his generation, why do you not declare that these things are said by Scripture about him, which it appears to say about all other created things? For regarding those things that came into being from God, will precedes, as in the passage, "Let us make man," and in the passage, "He has done all things whatsoever he willed." But regarding the Word of God, no will or purpose appears to precede; rather, we hear only that he was and is.

And this.

Paul says concerning our Savior Jesus Christ, that he is the power of God and the wisdom of God (*1 Cor. I, 24*). If, therefore, the Word who exists from him and in him is the wisdom and power of the Father, he himself is that in which he wills and through whom he works all things. How then did he come into being by an act of will, when he is that in which the Father's will exists? For either it is necessary for us to fabricate another wisdom, by which the Father, having deliberated, made the Son—a thing which you are not ashamed to contrive—or, if there is no other wisdom, but he himself alone is the wisdom of the Father, then he is ^C also the Father's will and counsel; for the will of God is entirely set in his wisdom. Thus your reasoning is futile, and your arguments are shown to be empty and foolish.

And this.

If time precedes those things which come into being by an act of will, during which the deliberation concerning them took place, and if even a small

^A moment were granted to him, how would the Son be the creator of times, if an act of will precedes his generation? But he is the creator of times; he was therefore, and there is nothing before his generation. And this. If the Son is the wisdom of the Father, as indeed he is, how is there a time when wisdom was not in him? If he is eternally in the Father—for the Father is always wise—how shall anything be thought to exist prior to the one who is always? And how will an act of will find a place in between, introducing the one who was not once, the co-eternal with the One who begot him, as his wisdom? He does not therefore beget the Son by an act of will, but by nature; for this is more fitting for him. And this. If every act of will that occurs in some people does not happen without a word—for a word is the will revolving unseen in the heart, and the Son is the Word of the Father—then he himself is the will. Then how does a will come to be in a will? Or how is the Word in the Word? Therefore the Son is all things to the Father, Word, and will, and wisdom, and there is nothing in the Father before him. And this. Just as we do not have it by an act of will that we are fathers to those who are from us, but by nature, so also God and Father is not Father by an act of will, but by nature. And just as those begotten by us are entirely similar to us in essence, so also the Son, not being added from ^B without to the Father, but existing and having proceeded from his essence, is similar in all things to the One who begot him. And just as the Father is not Father by an act of will, so also the Son is not Son by an act of will, but is by nature the radiance and character of the One who begot him. And this. It is extremely absurd and dangerous to say concerning the Son that he was begotten by an act of will, or against the will. For he who is Father and God not by an act of will does not have the Word who proceeded from his essence by an act of will, but naturally. For thus he is his image, and a true likeness, not a false one. From chapter 20 of the same book. David sings somewhere: «Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.» Then he says: «Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.» And the Word was reigning with the Father even before the anointing. How then is he, who is reigning and holy, anointed and sanctified as king? Just as, therefore, being this always, he is said to have reigned in the last times, so also being most high, he is said to be exalted on account of the economy of the incarnation. He is exalted, however, and anointed, and sanctified for our sake, so that grace may flow through him into all, as already bestowed upon nature, and henceforth being saved for the whole race. Thus also the Savior said in the Gospel according to John: «For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified.»

^A

From the second book of the Treasury, chapter 29

On every side, the adversaries of Christ seize upon an occasion for impiety, and set that one thing before themselves as if it were a sign, that they might rashly cast reproaches upon the Son of God. For hearing Him say, «I and the Father are one,» they do not believe, but endeavor to twist those words into another meaning, not granting that He is one with the Father, and thus they struggle to destroy and pervert what was famously and correctly said. But whatever they may find in the Gospels that He either endured, or said, or did as a man—such as that He wept, and was sorrowful, and the rest of the same kind that are appropriate to human nature—they do not refer these to His humanity, but immediately attributing them to the Word, they infer from these that He is not God, since He suffered such things, and thus they number Him among the things created, though He is their Creator. Therefore, either concede to the Son that He is one with the Father, and you will not discover the Word, who exists in equality with the Father, to be by Himself—insofar as He is the Word—weeping, or being sorrowful, or being troubled by passion; or if you do not believe this, then you will be counted among the unbelieving Jews. For if you do not believe Him when He says that He is one with His own Father, nor believe Him when He says He is sorrowful, ^B thus you will appear, as has been said, to be among them, accepting nothing at all of what was said by the Savior.

From the same, from the Commentaries on the Gospel according to John, that the Son is not lesser than the Father

If the Son is lesser and the Father greater, then clearly they will operate regarding the sanctification directed toward us in a diverse manner and in proportion to the measures that each one has. And the Father will sanctify more, while the Son will sanctify less and of Himself. Therefore, the Spirit will also be twofold, minor in the Son, and major in the Father. And some will be made perfect saints by the Father, while others will be made less perfect by the Son. These and many other absurdities will follow. For the Holy Spirit is one; the sanctification is one and perfect, which is naturally exhibited from the Father through the Son. Therefore, He is not lesser who has the same perfect action as the perfect Father, and who possesses within Himself the good, living, and subsistent Spirit of the One who begets, just as indeed the Father has Him. ^C

And this

If the Son was in the form and equality of the Father, as Paul says, how is He lesser than Him? For surely the assumption of human flesh and the emptying do not despoil

^A the Son of the dignity belonging to Him by nature, having as it does its resolution in His second coming from heaven. For He shall surely come, as we have heard Him saying, "in the glory of His Father" (Matt. XVI, 27). How then is He who is lesser than Him even generally in the glory of the perfect Father?

And this. If the Father is Lord, and the Son is likewise Lord, how is the Son lesser than Him? For He would not be perfectly free if He were lesser in authority, nor would He possess the dignity in Himself in its fullness. And if the Father is light, and the Son is likewise light, how is He lesser than Him? For if He were lesser, He would not be light in a perfect sense, but would in some part be overtaken by darkness, and the Evangelist would be lying when he says: "And the darkness did not comprehend it" (Joh. I, 5). And if the Father is life, and the Son is likewise Life, how is the Son lesser than Him? For if He were not life in a perfect sense in us, even if Christ dwells in the inner man, then those who have believed in Him would be in some part dead. Since these things are to be rejected far from us as absurd, we say the Son is perfect, ^B and equal to the perfect Father because of the undistinguishable similarity of substance in every respect.

And this. Declaring Himself equal to God and the Father, Christ says in one place to His own disciples: "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (Joh. XIV, 9). How then will He who is such by nature—as He Himself, who is the Truth, affirms—be lesser than the Father, as some rashly suppose? For if, being lesser, He expresses the Father in Himself without any intervening change, that very quality of being lesser will fall back upon the Father, inasmuch as He is seen expressed in the image, namely, in the Son. But this is absurd. Therefore the Son is not lesser, in Whom the Father, being perfect, is imaged.

And this. How could the Son, to whom it is established that all that is the Father's belongs, be lesser, saying irreproachably: "All things that the Father has are Mine" (Joh. XVI, 15)? And again, ^C as He addresses God and the Father: "All Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" (Joh. XVII, 10). For if, as some rashly think, the Son is lesser—since He speaks the truth when He says to the Father, "Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine"—then the quality of being lesser will also shift to the Father, and likewise the quality of being greater to the Son, as the order of things is not different, and as those things which belong to one are observed in both; and whatever is the Father’s, the same is also the Son’s, and again, whatever appears to be the Son’s own, the same is also the Father’s. Nothing, then, would prevent us from saying that the Father is lesser than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Father. Since it is most absurd even to think of this, it follows that the Son is equal to the Father, having all the dignities of substance common with the Father. ^D And this is of the most absurd things, even to think that the Father has any advantages in substance.

And this. In a certain place the Saviour says that just as He is in the Father, so the Father is in Him. Now in no way can one conceive

^A of it as a body within a body, or a vessel within a vessel, in such a way that the Father might be contained within the Son, or again that the Son might conversely be inserted in some way into the Father; rather, the one appears within the other, and the other within the first, as in an immutable identity of substance, and according to the unity and likeness of nature. Just as if someone, observing his own likeness in an image, were to say to those present, speaking truly, and were to marvel at the highly developed resemblance of his own form, crying out: "I am in this image, and the image is in me"; or again, as if the heat, naturally produced from fire, were to emit a voice and say: "I am in the fire, and the fire is in me." For each of the aforementioned things is in a way divisible by thought, yet in nature, and in an indivisible outgushing from one, it proceeds as something one, just as it appears to be separated from that in which it exists. ^B Nevertheless, even if the power of the thoughts concerning them has this type of character, yet they appear in one another, and they are the same as far as essence is concerned. If, therefore, because of the immutability of the essence and the entirely unalterable character, the Father is in the Son, how, according to them, will the greater be contained in and seen in the lesser Son? Since He is entirely perfect in Him, it follows necessarily that the Son is the receptacle of the perfect and the character of the great Father.

From the same [author], from the discourse on the holy Trinity.

But that we may show the equality of the Father and the Son, let us come to the Lord’s own teaching. "No one," He says, "knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." What is clearer than these words? He says that our knowledge is equal. For I know the Father, being known by Him, and the Father knows me, being known by me. But all creation is excluded from this knowledge. For how is it possible for those who do not share our nature to participate in this knowledge? Yet some do attain a small amount of apprehension. ^C For I reveal the knowledge of the Father to those whom I will, as it is possible, "as in a mirror and in a riddle." These things we have learned from the Lord's teachings. What place, then, does "the greater" and "the lesser" have here?

From the same [author], from chapter 10 of the first book of the *Thesaurus*.

Christ says somewhere: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." The divine Scripture also bears witness concerning Him that "He did not think it robbery to be equal to God." How, then, will He be equal and yet have the Father as greater? This must be examined accurately, for such things seem to be contrary to one another. ^D Since it is our purpose to examine these sayings piously, we shall neither cast aside the equality because of the "greater," nor, on the other hand, shall we deny that the Father is greater because of the equality of the Son. Both will have a place if we are willing to consider and understand these things piously. The nature of the Godhead, therefore, being simple and uncompounded, would never have been cut in thought into a duality of Father and Son, unless someone—

recognized that this was not a work of his own. Nor would he have said that all the kingdoms were delivered to him unless he had also been granted their dominion, as though they were made by him, as has been shown beforehand.

34. *And leaving Nazareth*, he says, *Jesus came and dwelt in Capernaum*. They call us Nazareth, and themselves Capernaum. And they say that Christ dwells now with them, having left our assembly.

35. They assert that Christ spoke all the beatitudes only concerning those who are believers among them—that is, the Bogomils. For they say that such are they who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, and the rest. And the Lord also said that these were called the *salt of the earth* and the light of the world, and all that he said about the apostles.

36. *One iota*, he says, *or one tittle shall not pass from the law, until all things be fulfilled*. By "iota" they understand the Decalogue of the Law, and by "tittle" the same law again. For if one should straighten a tittle lying transversely, he will make an iota. Then they interpret it that the Decalogue of the Law will not pass away, but will remain, being kept among the Hebrews, until heaven and earth pass away. *For I did not come*, he says, *to destroy the law of Moses, but to fulfill heaven*, which had been emptied long ago of the angels who dwelt in it, and to refill the ranks of the powers that had fallen.

37. *Unless your righteousness*, he says, *exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven*. They call us scribes and Pharisees, as those who practice the study of letters and boast in it; but they say that our righteousness surpasses theirs in that we teach things which are truer and follow a way of life that is more accurate and purer, abstaining from the eating of meat, and cheese, and eggs, and marriage, and such things.

38. *Be well-disposed*, he says, *to your adversary*. They call the devil the adversary of men, and interpret it with a deranged mind, that it is necessary to be well-disposed to him and to treat him with worship, as we have related above, so that he might not heel and trip up the disobedient and deliver them to the Judge and God, to undergo, on the day of judgment, the account of the tripping.

39. Since the passage, *Whoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication*, and the following of the Lord, is opposed to the dogma of these men regarding not being joined to a woman, they say that these things are secret to all men and uninterpretable, and known only to those who put off the flesh. And confirming the dogma of celibacy, they bring forward the word of the Lord, who said: *In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage*, interpreting insanely that the resurrection is repentance and the evangelical life.

^A And to be able to take on some separation and division between one another is the property of bodies. But the divine essence of the Father, being incorporeal, is not recipient of cutting or division; nor does it exist in a place, nor is it contained by anyone, but residing in an arcane and ineffable state, it brought forth the Son from itself without separation; it could not be perfect in its being in any other way, unless it had begotten the Son, and been shown forth as fruit-bearing; and again, it could not be creative in any other way, unless it had brought forth from itself indivisibly the Son, through whom it works all things. The Son, therefore, is begotten from the Father, not by any cutting or efflux, as you imagine; but just as heat from fire, he proceeds indivisibly from the essence of the one who begets.

^B And this. If the Son is consubstantial with the Father, he says, why is he not also himself good in the same way as the Father? For Christ says somewhere to someone: *Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God.* But by saying *one*, he excluded himself, inasmuch as he is indeed good himself, but not in the same way as the Father.

Since the divine Scripture calls the Son Lord, you will surely grant that he is also Lord, and indeed truly, or else along with others you will deny this. For if you say he is not Lord, you think the opposite to the divine Scriptures and to the Spirit who spoke these things. But if you have agreed and claimed him to be Lord, you will be caught acting impiously by both calling him Lord and worshipping him, while you say he is not consubstantial with God the Father, and you worship a creature rather than the true God. For that which belongs to a different essence from the one who is truly God cannot be God by nature. And of this, the divine Scripture is witness, saying: *The Lord our God, the Lord is one* (Deut. vi, 4); for there is one nature of the Godhead. And that one ought to worship this alone, you will hear again: *You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve* (Deut. x, 20; Matth. iv, 10). If, therefore, because God and Father is called alone good, the Son cannot be good as is the Father, and for the same reason because the Father is called one Lord and God, the Son must also fall away from being Lord and God, according to the sequence of the reasoning; how, then, do you worship him who is neither Lord nor God? But if, while the Father is Lord and God, the Son is also implied, having the property from thence ^C as existing naturally from him, and he is Lord and God with the Father, he will surely also have being good as the Father, the paternal property being present in him in this respect also, just as it is in Him.

And this. The divine Scriptures say many things about both the Father and the Son, and the difference of names does not by any means distinguish the rational account of their essence, so as to contain some dissimilarity between them on this account. For there is one Godhead of the Father and the Son, even if each is indicated differently by the variety of names, not as having something peculiar and by itself, which is not first in the other, but as being able to encompass both in all respects.

^A That which might be said of one is said of both, apart only from the name and the reality of Father and Son. For the Father is always Father, and could never become Son; and the Son is always Son, and could never be Father. If, however, someone should wish to maintain that a name attributed to one cannot apply to both, he will fall into a great evil. For what would he do, given that Paul says: “One God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”? Behold how clearly he attributes it to the Father to be God and to be one, and to the Son to be Lord and to be one. Shall then the Son not be God, because the Father has been named God and one? Or shall the Father not be Lord, because the Son has been called Lord and one? But this is not so, God forbid. For since the Father is God, the Son is also God; and again, since the Son is Lord, the Father is also Lord. But if there were any difference of essence separating the pair and not allowing them to unite naturally into identity, I do not think the name of the one could properly be attributed to the other. Since, however, all things that are the Father’s are manifest in the Son, and conversely, what is the Son’s is in the Father, so that no ^B argument can any longer hinder their identity, He will also be good, just as the Father, and for this reason consubstantial.

And this too.

And this too.

And this too.

Paul and Peter by the argument of essence, since they have a certain partial difference, as it were, in the individual, according to which this one is Peter and that one is Paul. We see, however, that often even those things which in another way differ greatly from a mutual likeness, agree according to the argument of essence. For a black man, for instance, has a great difference from a white man, but this does not cut asunder their essence. If, therefore, even in ourselves a difference in some respect does not overturn the being of the same essence, from which those who differ from us might themselves consist, what prevents the Son from also being consubstantial with the Father, even if they differ between themselves in that the Father is unbegotten, but the Son is begotten? For there is one divinity in them, proceeding naturally from the unbegotten Father to the Begotten. ^B And this. If the Father began to beget the Son and ceased, according to the madness of the Christ-fighters, a certain alteration and change occurred in Him. For what was not before he begot, became so after begetting. If, however, the Divine is above such things and is insusceptible to change and alteration, He did not begin to beget, nor did He cease, as these men say; but the Son, the Creator of ages and times, was timelessly in the Father. Since, then, He is co-eternal, for this reason He is also consubstantial.

And this. If the Father began to beget the Son, this then accrued to His essence, and what He did not have in the beginning, He received later. But that which admits of some addition would be imperfect, and not perfect. But this is absurd; for the essence of the Father is perfect. Therefore, begetting did not accrue to it, but this was in it, not having begun. If, however, He did not begin to beget, then the Son who is begotten from Him is co-eternal with the Father. And just as, if He had had a beginning of being, He would not be consubstantial, so, since He did not have a beginning in time, He will be entirely consubstantial.

And this. Just as those who fight against the truth, by attributing a beginning and an end to the generation of the Son, exclude Him from likeness to the One who begot, so we, acknowledging neither beginning nor end regarding the generation of the Son, introduce Him into an exact likeness to the Father. And that which is like in all respects is also consubstantial. ^C

And this. "And how," he says, "could an identity of essence be preserved in the Father and the Son, if indeed the Father is unbegotten, but the Son is begotten? For it is absolutely necessary to say that the unbegotten and the begotten do not differ in anything." If this is so, nothing will prevent us from also calling the Father begotten and the Son unbegotten, and everything is confounded. ^D

^A He who ignorantly raises these objections will hear from us in turn: How could an identity of essence be preserved in the Father and the Son, if the Son is the image of the Father and shows the Father within himself? For it is manifest and admitted by all that no one perceives one thing within another in a different nature; nor could anyone, having seen a horse, say that he has seen one of the human race. For the demonstration of similarities exists in those of the same nature, not in those that are distinct from one another according to the reasoning of their mode of existence. If, therefore, to Philip, who was desiring to see the Father, Christ shows himself, saying: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John xiv, 9), it is strictly necessary to say that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, as an exact image and character of his hypostasis. ^B Indeed, if, as you who are in error and leading others into error suppose, the Son did not proceed from the essence of the Father, but came into existence from without, and he himself is the wisdom and power of the Father, then the Father is neither wise nor powerful by nature, if indeed, as you erroneously imagine, he produced from without the Son, who is his wisdom and power. But he is wise and powerful by nature. It is therefore strictly necessary to say that the Son is also from the essence of the Father. And if this is so, he is also consubstantial. And the four subsequent chapters also speak in harmony with the foregoing concerning the consubstantial. ^C "In your law," he says, "it is written that the testimony of two men is true." Then he adds, "I am one who testifies for myself, and the Father who sent me testifies for me." Looking, therefore, to the image, let us understand the archetype. "The testimony of two men," he says, "is true." But that the nature of two men is one is evidently confessed by all. Therefore, the essence of the Father and of the Son will be understood and confessed as one from the image. For just as there are two men there, so here there is God and God, Father and Son, who by those very names show the identity of nature. For neither would the true God be of a different nature from the true God, nor would the Son exist as the Son of a God other than him. Having heard these things, the Jews asked him: "Where is your Father?" Jesus then answered: "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would also know my Father." ^D See again how the consubstantiality is demonstrated from this. "For if you knew me," he says, "you would know my Father also." But from that which is different by nature, another thing is not naturally recognized as different. For things that are foreign and alien to one another do not demonstrate one another; but things joined by a communion of nature are recognized through one another. From one man it is possible to know the entire nature of men; and from one sheep the entire race of sheep; but not, however, by a sheep

^A nor from lions, sheep; nor angels from men, nor men from angels: for every animal is demonstrative of its own nature. If, therefore, the only-begotten Word of God is a creature, and has come into being out of nothing, and from another nature, how does He, by being believed in, show the Father in Himself? But if the Father is known through the Son, and he who knows the Son also knows the Father, every blasphemous tongue should be fettered, and, according to the Prophet, stick to the throat. We, however, who are worshippers of the Trinity, let us acquire from this an accurate knowledge of consubstantiality, considering that the Father could not otherwise have been known in the Son, if He did not happen to be of the same substance. And let us worship our Savior, awaiting the fruit of worship, whose giver is the Father Himself, according to the Lord’s word: "For if anyone," He says, "serves Me, my Father will honor him." And also the admirable John the Theologian says: "He who believes in the Son, he says, has eternal life; but he who is disobedient to the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."

If the Word, they say, is consubstantial with the Father, and the Father with the Word, nothing any longer prevents the Father from being, and being called, the Word, as consubstantial with the Word. Things of the same nature are not by any means changed into one another. For ^B neither did Adam, being consubstantial with his son Cain, by changing into Cain, become Cain. Nor did Cain, by having moved into Adam because he was consubstantial with him, become Adam, but while being one in nature on account of their similarity, they have remained two persons, distinct in hypostasis. For the one begot, and the other was begotten, according to hypostasis.

The statement, "I live because of the Father," does not represent the Son as of a different essence, but rather as consubstantial. For just as if some son of a man were to say, "I am rational because of my father," meaning because my father is rational, so also the Son and God says, "I live because the Father is life." And by such a statement, the Son and Word declared the Fatherly cause.

Whence is the Son called consubstantial with the Father? The Apostle says, "Who, ^C existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a matter of robbery." Since the form of God is understood as the divine nature, and equality is also attached to it, He is reasonably called consubstantial. For that which is of equal nature to the Father is, therefore, also of equal substance. And Christ Himself said: "I and the Father are one," manifesting the identity of the nature, that is, of the substance.

From the same, from chapter 1 of book 1 of the *Thesaurus*, concerning the unbegotten, chapter 8.

1. "Unbegotten" is understood in many meanings. "Unbegotten" is that which has not yet come into being, but is capable of coming into being, as a ship from wood, or a statue from bronze;

and that which has never been made, nor can be made. For example, a triangle is never made into a quadrilateral, nor can it be. For as soon as the figure of the triangle is destroyed, something else other than what it was is both said to be and comes into being. Again, that which exists and subsists, but has not been brought into being by anyone, is called unbegotten.

2. This term, "unbegotten," should rightly be understood as belonging to those things said in many ways, and it is deservedly placed among those that are ambiguous. However, definitions of essences are not constructed from ambiguous words that signify many things. For from these, nothing clear, certain, and defined can exist. Consequently, since "unbegotten," as we have said, is of this kind, it cannot be a definition. ^B

3. If a definition is that which explains what each thing is by nature, and not what it is not, but this word "unbegotten" does not reveal what God is, but what He is not—for because He was not begotten, for that reason He is unbegotten—therefore, the name "unbegotten" cannot be a definition.

4. If the name "unbegotten," or rather the term, is a definition, it must also accept the form of definitions, namely, mutual conversion with the thing defined. For example, if someone defines man as a rational, mortal animal, he converts it again by saying: if any being is a rational, mortal animal, that being is altogether a man. If, therefore, "unbegotten," as we have said, is a definition, let it not refuse this mutual conversion. For if "unbegotten" is an essence, whatever is an essence will also be unbegotten. But that is not true. For not every essence is unbegotten, but God alone has this peerless attribute. Therefore, "unbegotten" is not a definition, but merely signifies that He has not been begotten.

5. If "unbegotten" is an essence, and there is nothing contrary to essence, then there will be nothing contrary to the unbegotten. But if the begotten is contrary to the unbegotten, and there is nothing contrary to essence, then "unbegotten" is not an essence. ^C

6. If "unbegotten" is an essence, then of necessity the "begotten" will also be an essence. But if both are essences, the begotten is not contrary to the unbegotten, but the same, for essence is not contrary to essence.

7. If "unbegotten," and "immortal," and the rest are the essence of God, but these are diverse in terms of their respective words, it is necessary that that essence be composed of these diverse words so that the words may be properly predicated of it; or, if it is not composed, it follows that these words signify not the essence itself, but things that belong to the essence, yet are not the essence itself. ^D

8. If "unbegotten" is an essence, as they claim, only in regard to God, there would therefore be a definition of it, for which "unbegotten" would be the sole unique property. But if there is no definition to which the essence of God is subject, then "unbegotten" is not a proper name of God.

Still against the Arians, from Damascene, Chapter 85, a most necessary chapter.

One must know that He assumed an ignorant and servile nature. For the nature of man is indeed servile.

^A serva is the work of God its maker, and it does not have knowledge of future events. For if, according to Gregory the Theologian, you separate that which is seen from that which is thought, the flesh is called a servant and ignorant. But because of the identity of the person, and the indissoluble union, the soul of the Lord was enriched also with the knowledge of things to come, as well as the other divine signs. ^B For just as the flesh of men, according to its own nature, is not life-giving, yet the flesh of the Lord, united in person to God the Word himself, did not depart from its natural mortality, but became life-giving because of that personal union with the Word, and we cannot say that it was not and is not always life-giving; so, while human nature does not essentially possess the knowledge of things to come, the soul of the Lord, because of the union with God the Word and the personal identity, was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of things to come along with the other divine signs. And it must be understood that we cannot call him a servant. For the names of servant and master are not marks of nature, just as those of father and son are not, but they are relative terms, and these denote not essence, but relationship. Thus, just as we said regarding ignorance, if by thin and subtle thoughts, that is, by the fine imaginings of the mind, you divide that which is created from that which is uncreated, the flesh is a servant, if it were not united to God the Word; but once united in person, how can it be a servant? For Christ is one and cannot be his own servant, and Lord. For these things are not said simply, but in relation to another. Whose servant, then, would he be? The Father's? Then not all things that the Father has are the Son's, if he is the servant of the Father, but not at all his own. ^C And how does the Apostle say of us: "So you are no longer a slave, but a son," adopted through him, if he himself is a slave? Therefore, he is called a slave descriptively, not being one himself, but because for our sake he took the form of a slave and was called a slave with us. For being impassible, for our sake he became subject to passions, and became a minister of our salvation. But those who call him a slave divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare him to be the Master and Lord of all creation, one Christ, the same being both God and man, and knowing all things. For in him are all the treasures of the wisdom and of the knowledge hidden.

TITLE XII. Concerning the Holy Spirit, from the discourse of the great Athanasius on the advent of Christ in the flesh.

When the Lord says in Isaiah: "I have begotten and raised up children; but they have despised me," in the Gospel he says: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." And again,

^A “The Spirit blows where it wills, and you hear its voice, but you do not know from where it comes, or where it goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” And since Scripture calls God fire, as where it says, “Our God is a consuming fire,” it speaks also of the Holy Spirit, saying ^B that “there appeared to the apostles cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” And while the Lord refuses to be called good, insofar as He has become man, saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God,” Scripture does not hesitate to call the Holy Spirit good: “Your good Spirit,” it says, “shall lead me into the land of uprightness.” And the prophet Ezekiel, accusing the ancient people, said, “They provoked me in all these things, says the Lord.” And Paul writes to the new people, ^B “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit, in whom you were sealed.” And David says concerning the Jews, “They provoked God in the desert,” and Isaiah, speaking of the same, says, “They disobeyed, and provoked the Holy Spirit.” And the Lord, speaking of Himself to Satan, says, “You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” and Peter said to Sapphira, “Why has it been agreed between you to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?” And it is clearer still that the Holy Spirit is God, hearing Peter saying: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to defraud from the price of the land? You have not lied to men, but to God.” If he who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God, therefore the Holy Spirit is God. ^C

Epistle of the same Athanasius to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, on the Holy Spirit.

You have written, beloved and truly most desired one, being grieved yourself, as some have departed from the Arian heresy concerning the Son of God, yet they think wickedly concerning the Holy Spirit, and contend that He is not only a created thing, but also one of the ministering spirits, and differs from the angels only in degree. For a truly wonderful folly theirs appears, that those who do not wish the Son of God to be a created thing (in which matter they indeed think rightly), yet suffer to hear or even to think that the Spirit of the Son is a created thing. For if, on account of the unity of the Word with the Father, they do not wish the Son to be of things created, but believe Him to be, as is true, the maker of created things; why do they dare to say that the Holy Spirit, who has the same unity with the Son as the Son has with the Father, ^D is a created thing? Why are they ignorant that, just as by not dividing the Son from the Father they preserve the unity of God, so by dividing the Spirit from the Word, they no longer preserve the one Godhead in the Trinity, but rend it?

^A And those who mix in a foreign and different nature with it, and accustom it to the creatures, do this? This again shows that the Trinity is not one, but composed of two and different natures, because of the different substance of the Spirit, which they have devised for themselves. What then is this theology composed of the Creator and the creature? If the Trinity is indeed the Trinity, as it is, how is it that you combine the creature with the Trinity, along with the Spirit of the Trinity? This is again to divide and destroy the Trinity. If then, you think wrongly about the Holy Spirit, you do not think correctly even about the Son. For if you thought rightly about the Word, you would also think soundly about the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Son, and is given to the disciples and to all who believe in Him. Thus, being led astray, you do not even have sound faith concerning the Father. For those who are opposed to the Spirit, these also deny the Son. And those who deny the Son, do not have the Father either. They who deny the Son, deny also the Father.

Whence then, O you men, is the pretext for such boldness that you should not fear what was said by the Lord: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness, neither in this age, nor in the coming one"? ^B The Arians, indeed, not truly understanding what was said concerning the manifestation of the Word in the flesh, and the things pertaining to Him, nevertheless have taken a pretext from them for their own heresy, and thus have been convicted of being God-fighters and truly speaking empty words. But whence were you deceived? By hearing from whom, and what is the mode of such error of yours? We have read, you say, in the prophet Amos, God saying: "For behold, I am He who establishes the thunder, and creates the spirit, and declares to men His Christ, making the morning and the fog, and walking upon the high places of the earth; the Lord God Almighty is His name." ^C And from this you are misled by the Arians, who claim that the Holy Spirit is a creature. Then, on the one hand, you have read this in Amos; but on the other hand, in the Proverbs that are spoken: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways for his works," do you not read, or if you read, do you interpret this as truth, so as to say that the Word is a creature? But the one that you do not interpret as the prophet, but simply hearing "spirit," you thought it was said to be the Holy Spirit as a creature? And yet, in the Proverbs, where Wisdom is clearly saying: "He created me," and you are right to interpret that statement well, so that you do not number the Creator Wisdom among the creatures, why do you not also interpret the phrase in the prophet—which does not even denote the Holy Spirit, but is said simply about spirit? How, then, when there is such a difference in the Scriptures concerning spirits, and the phrase is able to have an independent meaning...

^A of having a right understanding, do you, as if contentious or as if injured by the bite of the Arian serpent, think that the Holy Spirit is spoken of by Amos, so that you might just not forget to consider [Him] a creature?

Tell me, therefore, if you find anywhere in the divine Scripture the Holy Spirit called simply "spirit," without the addition of being said to be "of God," or "of the Father," or "of me," or "of Christ Himself," [or] of the Son, or "from me" — which is from God — or without the article, so that it is not said simply as "spirit," but as "the Spirit," or "the Holy Spirit," or "the Paraclete," or "of truth," which is of the Son, who says: ^B "I am the truth"; so that, upon hearing the bare word "spirit," you might suspect it to be the Holy Spirit?

Exclude, however, from this rule those who, having already received the Holy Spirit, are mentioned again regarding the same, or those who, having learned beforehand what must be believed concerning the Holy Spirit, afterwards — as if in repetition and reminder, and with only the word "spirit" spoken — are not ignorant of whom they hear, especially because it is also expressed with the article in this way. And in general, without the article, or the aforementioned addition, the Holy Spirit would not be signified; such as that which Paul writes to the Galatians: ^C "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" What other [Spirit] had they received than the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe and are reborn through the laver of regeneration? And writing to the Thessalonians: "Do not quench the Spirit." He was admonishing those who certainly knew what Spirit they had received, so that they should not, through negligence, extinguish the grace of the Spirit that had been kindled within them.

But if the evangelists in the Gospels, speaking of the Savior in a human manner because of the flesh which He assumed, have these things: "Jesus, being full of the Spirit, returned from the Jordan," and, "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit ^D into the desert," the same meaning is to be observed here. For it had been said previously by Luke: "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized, and Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him." Thus it was clear that, by the mention of "the Spirit," the Holy Spirit was signified.

Thus, among those with whom the Holy Spirit is, even if it is said only "the Spirit" without the addition upon Him, it is not doubtful that the Holy Spirit is denoted, especially if the article is present. But you, show me what we have proposed to you, if you have found anywhere in the divine Scripture the Holy Spirit called simply "spirit," without the aforementioned addition upon Him, and apart from the observation of which we made mention. This you certainly could never provide; for you will never find it written thus. For the spirit of a man is also spoken of, as David sings: "In the night I meditated with my heart, and my spirit was troubled."

^A

It is also called the spirit of the winds.

And if you also read the Holy Scriptures, you will find it referred to as "spirit," precisely when the interior meaning of the divine words is intended, as Paul writes: "Who also made us sufficient to be ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." For while the expression itself is written in terms of the letter, the sense contained within it is called "spirit." Thus also: "The law is spiritual," and as he said again, "that we should not serve in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit." The same apostle, giving thanks, said: "So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin." And Philip, wishing to turn the eunuch from the letter to the spirit, said: "Understandest thou what thou readest?" That Caleb had such a spirit is evident from the Book of Numbers, where God says: "My servant Caleb, because another spirit was in him, and he hath followed me, I will bring him into the land which he entered." Indeed, because he spoke with another mind than theirs, he was acceptable to God. God also exhorted the people through Ezekiel to have such a heart, saying: "Make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit." Since these things are so, and such a difference in spirits has been demonstrated, you would act more equitably if, whenever there is mention of a created spirit, you understood it as one of the aforementioned spirits. Such is the one of which it is read in Isaiah: "Syria hath conspired with Ephraim, and his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved by the spirit." ^B The same is also indicated by these words: "The Lord stirred up a spirit in the sea," on account of Jonah. For the spirits of the winds follow thunder, as happened in the rain that fell against Ahab, as it is written: "And it came to pass that in the mean time the heavens grew dark with clouds and spirit."

But since, they say, Scripture makes mention of Christ, it follows that the spirit in question here must be understood as none other than the Holy Spirit. Did you notice then that the Holy Spirit is named together with Christ? But where did you understand that He is divided and separated by nature from the Son, seeing that you dare to say that Christ is not a created thing, but that the Holy Spirit is a created thing? It would indeed be absurd to name things that are dissimilar by nature together and to celebrate them with the same glory. For what communion or what likeness has a created thing with the Creator? Indeed, if it is so, nothing remains but for you to count and join to the Son the things that He Himself created. Thus, it would have been sufficient to understand what is written in the prophet regarding the spirit of the winds, as has already been said. ^{C D}

^A Since, however, you raise an objection regarding the mention of Christ made in that place, the matter must be accurately explained by us, in case we might be able to show something better concerning that spirit which is said to be created. For what is it to announce Christ among men, other than for Him to become man, and for this to be the same as the saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel,” and the other things that are written concerning His advent? Since, therefore, the advent of the Word into the flesh is announced in that place, what kind of created spirit must we understand, other than the spirit of men which is fashioned and renewed, just as God promised through Ezekiel, saying: “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I give you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh; and I will put My Spirit within you.” When, then, was this fulfilled, if not when the Lord came and renewed all things by His grace? ^B Moreover, the difference between the spirits is also shown in this place. For our spirit is that which is renewed; but God declares the Holy Spirit—calling it not simply a spirit, but His own Spirit—to be that in which our spirit is indeed renewed, as the Psalmist also clearly teaches in the hundred and third Psalm: “You shall take away their spirit, and they shall fail, and return to their dust. You shall send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created; and You shall renew the face of the earth.” But if we are renewed in the Spirit of God, then the Holy Spirit is not that which is said to be created, but our spirit [is]. Likewise, if, because all things were made through the Word, you rightly hold that the Son is not a created thing, is it not then equally impious for you to contend that the Holy Spirit, in whom the Father perfects and renews all things through the Word, is a created thing? If, therefore, they have feigned for themselves that the Holy Spirit is that which is intended because it is written simply that a spirit is created, it ought now to be proven to them that it is not the Holy Spirit that is being created, but our own [spirit] that is renewed in Him; ^C concerning which David himself also prayed in this manner: “Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within my inward parts.”

Since, therefore, we must think in this way regarding that spirit which is being created, the thunder which is said to be established in that same place can also be understood consistently as the faithful word and the immutable law of the Spirit. Wishing for James and John to be ministers of this, the Lord named them Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder. Hence John truly cries out from the heavens: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For the law previously had a shadow of good things to come. But when Christ was announced to men and arrived, saying: “I that speak am He”; ^D then, as Paul said, His voice shook the earth, when He had promised this beforehand: “Yet once more I will move not only the earth, but also heaven.” And while He says “yet once more,” He declares the removal of those things that are shaken, so that those things which are not shaken may remain. Therefore, Royal

immovable things receiving, we have ^A grace, through which we serve well-pleasingly to God. Now, the kingdom which he calls immovable, this is what David sings as being established: “The Lord has reigned, He has clothed Himself with beauty; the Lord has clothed Himself with might, and has girded Himself. For He established the world, which shall not be moved.” The statement, therefore, in the ^B prophet signifies the advent of the Savior, in which we also were renewed, and the law of the Spirit remains immovable. But those who are truly figurative or vacillating, having entered into a foul pact with the Arians, and having divided among themselves the impiety against the Divinity—so that they call the Son a creature, and these the Spirit—have dared, as they themselves say, to invent again for themselves tropes, and to misinterpret ^C also the saying of the Apostle, which he himself correctly wrote to Timothy, saying: “I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou guard these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.” From which they conclude that, since he named God and Christ, and then the angels, it is necessary for the Spirit to be numbered among the angels, and for Him to be of their order, and for the angel to be greater than the others. First of all, this invention is of the impious Valentinus; and they do not escape notice, saying the same things as he. For he ^D said that, when the Paraclete was sent, his coeval angels were sent along with him. Afterward, they draw the Spirit down to the nature of angels, not noticing that they are placing angels in the Trinity. For if, according to them, angels follow after the Father and the Son, then the angels are certainly of the Trinity, and they are no longer “ministering spirits sent forth for service,” nor are they sanctified, but rather they would be sanctifiers of others.

What then is such madness of theirs? Where again in the Sacred Scriptures have they found the Spirit called an angel?

“The Holy Spirit shall come upon ^A thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.”

Do you not know what these are? And I said: No, Lord. And he answered and said to me, saying: This is the word of the Lord to Zorobabel, saying: Not by great power, nor by strength, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty.” ^A It is clear, then, that the angel speaking to the prophet was not the Holy Spirit, but that the one was an angel, while the other is the Spirit of the Lord Almighty; and while he is ministered to by an angel, he is inseparable from his divinity and belongs to the Word. But if anyone opposes us with the words of the Apostle, who mentions the elect angels after Christ, let them say which one of these would be joined to the Trinity? For they are not all one in number. Or which of them is it that descended into the Jordan in the form of a dove? For thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand are they who minister to him. Or why, when the heavens were opened, was it not said, “And one of the elect angels descended,” but rather, “The Holy Spirit”? Or why does the Lord himself, when discussing with his disciples concerning the end of times, distinctly say: “The Son of man will send his angels”? And before these things it had been said: “The angels were ministering to him.” Again he also said: “The angels will go out.” But when giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples, he said: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And again, when he sent them out to preach, he said: “Going, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” For he did not join an angel to the divinity, nor did he unite us to himself and the Father in a created thing, but in the Holy Spirit, whom, when he promised to send, he did not say he would send an angel, but ^B “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,” and who receives from him and is given.

Moses also, knowing that while the angels were created things, the Holy Spirit was united to the Son and to the Father—when God said to him: “Go, ascend from here, you and your people whom you led out of the land of Egypt, into the land which I swore to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying: To your seed I will give it; and I will send my angel before your face, and he will cast out the Canaanite” ^C —refused it, responding: “If you yourself do not go with us, do not lead me up from here.” For he did not want the people to be led by a created thing, lest they should learn to serve created things rather than the God who is the Creator of all. Certainly, he refused the angel as leader and asked that God himself should be his guide. And when God promised him this, answering: “And this word of yours, which you have spoken, I will do; for you have found favor before me, and I know you above all,” ^D we read also in Isaiah: “Who led up from the earth the shepherd of the sheep? Where is he who put his Holy Spirit in them, who led Moses by his right hand?” and a little later he says: “The Spirit descended from the Lord and led them. Thus you led your people, that you might make for yourself a glorious name.”

^A Who among these does not perceive the truth? For when God had promised to be the leader of the people, behold, He no longer promises to send an angel, but His Spirit, who is above the angels, and He Himself is the leader of the people. And it is shown that the Spirit is not of the created things, nor is He an angel, but He is above creation, being united to the divinity of the Father. For God Himself, through the Word in the Spirit, was leading the people; whence also through all of Scripture He says: “I brought you up out of the land of Egypt; you are my witnesses, if there was any other God among you besides me.” ^B The saints also address God: “You led your people like sheep,” and, “The Lord led them in hope, and they were not afraid.” To this same One they offer a hymn, saying: “To Him who led His people through the desert, for His mercy is forever.” But the great Moses repeatedly asserts: “The Lord God who goes before your face.” Therefore, the Spirit of God would not be an angel, nor a creature, but proper to His divinity. For since the Spirit was in the people, God through the Son in the Spirit was in them.

But let these things be so, they themselves also say: Why then did the Apostle, after Christ, not name the Holy Spirit, but the elect angels? ^C One might rightly interrogate them with the same question: Why did Paul not name archangels, nor cherubim, nor seraphim, nor dominations, nor thrones, nor anything else, but only the elect angels? Are then, because he did not name them in that way, the angels archangels, or do only angels exist, and are there no seraphim, or cherubim, no archangels and dominations, no thrones, no principalities, and does nothing else exist? But to inquire into this is nothing other than to impose on the Apostle a necessity to write in this way or that, and to be ignorant of the divine Scriptures, and as a result to go astray from the truth. For behold, it is written in Isaiah: “Draw near to me, and hear these things; I have not spoken from the beginning in secret; when it was happening, I was there; and now the Lord has sent me and His Spirit.” And in ^D Haggai: “And now be strong, Zorobabel, says the Lord, and be strong, Jesus son of Josedec, the high priest, says the Lord. And let all the people of the land be strong, says the Lord; and do work, for I am with you, says the Lord Almighty, and My Spirit stands in your midst.” And in both of the prophets there is mention only of the Lord and the Spirit. What then will they say in regard to this? For if, because Paul, having made mention of Christ, kept silent concerning the Spirit, but made mention of the elect angels, for this reason they do not fear to rank the Spirit among the angels; it remains that, from these prophetic words, they should more boldly argue also concerning Him who is passed over in silence there. For if they say that the Lord

^A is the Son, what would they say concerning the Father? And if they speak of the Father, what would they say concerning the Son? For may it not happen that anyone would even reckon the blasphemy that follows according to their view; for it is necessary for them to say either that He does not exist, or to rank what was passed over in silence among the created things.

What then will they say, if they hear also the Lord saying: "There was a judge in a certain city, who feared not God, and did not respect a man" (Luke XVIII. 2)? ^B Therefore, because after God He named man, is this man the Son, whom the unjust judge did not respect? Or, because after God He placed man, is the Son third after man, and the Holy Spirit fourth? And what, if they hear also the Apostle in the same epistle saying again: "I charge thee before God, who quickeneth all things, and Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate, a good confession, that thou keep the commandment without spot, blameless" (I Tim. VI. 13)? Because here he was silent concerning the angels and the Spirit, do they doubt ^C concerning the Spirit, whether He exists, and concerning the angels, if they exist? Yes, they doubt, as long as they have practiced such blasphemies against the Spirit. But if they hear the Scripture saying in Exodus: "And the people feared the Lord, and they believed the Lord, and Moses His servant" (Exod. XIV. 31), will they therefore rank Moses with God, and after God will they not understand the Son, but only Moses? And what if they hear also the patriarch Jacob blessing Joseph and saying: "God who feedeth me from my youth until this day; the angel that delivereth me from all evils, bless these boys" (Gen. XLVIII. 15)? ^D Because after God he named an angel, is the angel prior to the Son, or is the Son ranked among the angels? So indeed they would sense it, since their heart is corrupt. But this is not the apostolic faith, nor is it permitted to any Christian to tolerate these things. For the holy and blessed Trinity is indivisible and united to itself; and when mention is made of the Father, His Word is also present, and the Spirit in the Son. And if the Son is named, in the Son is the Father, and the Spirit is not outside the Word. For there is one grace from the Father, perfected through the Son in the Holy Spirit; and there is one Divinity, and there is one God who is over all, and through all, and in all. For thus also Paul, having said, "I protest before God and Jesus Christ" (II Tim. IV. 1), knew that the Spirit was not separated from the Son, but was also in Christ, just as the Son is in the Father ^D. Yet he appropriately added the elect angels, so that, because this was a testimony being spoken to the disciple, knowing that the things spoken from God through Christ in the Spirit were being spoken, while the angels minister our affairs, he might guard the exhortations of his master, as one who was persuaded that the very angels act as watchers and witnesses of all that he spoke.

^A Or perhaps he also testifies to the angels now, because of those who are the guardians of the nations in the Church of the little ones, so that the disciple, knowing the guardians, might not neglect the exhortations of the Apostle.

Such, to me, appears to be the sense of the divine scriptures, refuting clearly the impiety of these irrational men against the Spirit. But they, persisting in their contentiousness against the truth, as you write, no longer find their arguments from the Scriptures (for they find nothing there), but belching them forth from the abundance of their own hearts, they say again: "If He is not a creature, nor is He one of the angels, but proceeds from the Father, then He also is a Son, and He and the Word are two brothers." And if He is a brother, how is the Word "only-begotten"? Or how are they not equals, but the one named after the Father, and the other after the Son? And how, if He is from the Father, is He not also said to be begotten, or if He is the Son, why is He not simply called the Holy Spirit? And if the Spirit is of the Son, then the Father is the grandfather of the Spirit. ^B Such things do these shameful men babble, prying and wishing to search the depths of God, which no one knows except the Spirit of God, whom they so impiously revile. One should no longer answer them, but according to the apostolic command, after the aforementioned admonition, they should be avoided as heretics; or at least it might be worthwhile that they be questioned by us just as they question us, and that we demand from them an answer such as they demand from us. Let them say, then: if the Father is from a father, and if another has been begotten with Him, and they are brothers from one, what is their name, and who is the father of these, and the grandfather, and their ancestors? But they will say that there are none. Why then do they call Him Father, if He Himself did not come into being from a Father? Or how was He able to have a Son, if He Himself was not first begotten as a Son? I know that the question is impious; but it is right to mock those who are mocking with such things, so that even from such an absurd and impious question they might be able to perceive their own folly. For these things are not so; God forbid! Nor is it fitting to inquire about the Godhead in such a way. For God is not as a man, that anyone should dare to ask human things about Him.

^C To be silent, therefore, as I said before, and not to pretend to notice such men in these matters, would have been appropriate. But, lest our silence afford them an occasion for shamelessness, let them hear: just as it is impossible to speak of a father in the case of the Father, so it is impossible to speak of a brother in the case of the Son. For concerning the Father, as has been written before, no other God has come into being; nor is there any other Son; for He is the only-begotten. Therefore, the Father is the sole and one Father of the sole and one Son; and it is in the Godhead alone that the Father and the Son always stand and exist. For among men, if anyone is called a father, he has nonetheless become the son of another; ^D

^A so that among men the name of "father" and "son" is not preserved in the proper sense. Abraham, for instance, being the son of Terah, became the father of Isaac; and Isaac, being the son of Abraham, became the father of Jacob; and the nature of human beings is in this state: for they are portions of one another, and each one who is born has a portion of the father, so that he himself may also become the father of another. But in the case of the Godhead, it is not so. For God is not like a human being, nor does He possess a divisible nature; wherefore He does not beget a Son by being divided, so that He Himself might become the father of another, since He Himself is not from a father. Nor is the Son a part of the Father; wherefore He does not beget as He Himself was begotten, but He is the whole image and brightness of the whole. And in the Godhead alone is the Father properly the Father, and the Son properly the Son; and in these the Father stands always as Father, and the Son always as Son. And just as the Father could never be the Son, so the Son could never become the Father. And just as the Father will never cease to be uniquely the Father, so the Son will never cease to be uniquely the Son. It is therefore madness even to think or speak of a brother for the Son, or the name of "grandfather" for the Father. For the Spirit was not called "son" in the Scriptures, lest He be thought a brother; nor "son of the Son," lest the Father be thought a grandfather; but the Son [is son] of the Father.

From the same epistle.

^C The Father is called a fountain and a light. "For Me," He says, "they have forsaken, the fountain of living water." And again in Baruch: "What is it, Israel, that you are in the land of your enemies? You have forsaken the fountain of wisdom." And according to John, "God our light is." The Son is also called, as corresponding to the fountain, a river. "The river of God," He says, "is filled with water"; and as corresponding to the light, the brightness, Paul saying: "Who being the brightness of the glory, and the express image of His person." Since the Father, therefore, is the light, and the Son is His brightness—for we do not weary of saying the same things about them often—it is also possible to see the Spirit in the Son, in whom we are enlightened. "That He may give you," He says, "the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your heart being enlightened." Now when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who enlightens in Him. "For He was," He says, "the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world." And again, since the Father is the fountain and the Son is called the river, we are said to drink the Spirit. For it is written: "For we have all been made to drink into one Spirit"; but by being made to drink the Spirit, we drink Christ. "For they drank," He says, "of the following spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ." And again, since Christ is the true Son, we, receiving the Spirit, are made sons. "For you have not received," He says, "the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption of sons." And when we are adopted through the Spirit,

it is evident that in Christ we are named children of God. "For as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God." Furthermore, since the Father—as Paul said—is the only wise God, the Son is His wisdom. For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Now since the Son is the wisdom, we, receiving the Spirit of wisdom, have the Son and become wise in Him. For thus it is also written in the 145th Psalm: "The Lord looses the bound, the Lord makes the blind wise." And when the Spirit is given to us—"Receive the Holy Spirit," said the Savior—God is in us; for thus John wrote: "If we love one another, God abides in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given to us of His Spirit." And since God is in us, the Son will also be in us, the Son Himself saying: "I and the Father will come, and We will make Our abode with him." ^B Furthermore, since the Son is life—"For I," He says, "am the life"—we are said to be made alive in the Spirit. "For He who raised," He says, "Jesus Christ from the dead, will also make alive your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." And being made alive in the Spirit, Christ Himself is said to live in us. "I live," He says, "yet not I, but Christ lives in me." And again, just as the Son said that the works which He did, the Father was performing. "For the Father," He says, "who abides in Me, He does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." Thus, whatever Paul was accomplishing by the power of the Spirit, he said were the works of Christ. "For I will not be bold," he says, ^C "to speak of anything which Christ has not wrought through me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, in the power of the Holy Spirit." Since there is such coordination and unity in the Trinity, who then could henceforth separate the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son, or from the Father Himself? Or who would be so bold as to say that the Trinity is unlike to itself and diverse in nature, or that the Father has one essence and the Son another, or that the Spirit is alien to the Son? ^D *From the same epistle.*

As the Son is a begotten, only-begotten offspring, so also is the Spirit, given and sent from the Son; and He is one, and not many, nor one out of many, but the Holy Spirit is one alone. For since the Son, the living Word, is one, there must be one perfect and full sanctifying and enlightening life, which is His own operation and gift. Indeed, the Son is sent by the Father, but the Son sends the Spirit. For if, He says, "I go away, I will send you the Paraclete." And the Son indeed glorifies the Father, saying...

"Father, I have glorified You," but the Spirit glorifies the Son. For He, He says, will glorify Me. And the Son indeed says, "What I have heard from the Father, these things I also speak in the world," but the Spirit receives from the Son. "For He will receive from what is Mine," He says, "and will announce it to you." And the Son indeed came in the name of the Father; but concerning the Holy Spirit, He says, "Whom the Father will send in My name." Since the Spirit possesses such an order and nature with the Son as the Son possesses with the Father, how can the one who calls Him a creature not necessarily think the same thing about the Son? For if the Spirit of the Son is a creature, it would follow that they must also claim that the Word of the Father is a creature. But ^B those who do not pretend to hold the views of Arius, yet speak such things about the Spirit, let them flee from his words also, and not act impiously against the Spirit. For just as the Son, being in the Father, in whom the Father also is, is not a creature, but is proper to the Father's essence—for this you yourselves pretend to say—so too it is wicked to number the Spirit, who is in the Son, in whom the Son also is, among created things, or to separate Him from the Son, and to construct an incomplete Trinity.

From the same epistle.

The Spirit is said to vivify: "He who raised," He says, "Jesus Christ from the dead, will also vivify your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." Moreover, the Lord Himself is Life itself and the "Author of life," as Peter says. Yet the same Lord says: "The water that I will give to him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal life." But He said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believe in Him were about to receive. But created things, as has been said, receive life through Him. He, therefore, who does not become a participant of life, but Himself makes others participants and imparts life to created things, what kinship, I ask, can He have with things that have been made? Or by what reasoning at all should He be reckoned among created things, when they themselves receive life in Him from the Word? The Spirit is also called an Unction, and is likewise a seal; whence John writes: "And you, the unction which you received from Him remains in you. And you have no need that anyone should teach you; but as His unction"—that is, His Spirit—"teaches you concerning all things." And in the prophet Isaiah it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for which cause He has anointed Me." Paul also says: "In whom, also believing, you were sealed for the day of redemption." But created things are sealed and anointed by Him, and are taught concerning all things. If, therefore, the Spirit is an unction or ointment and a seal, in which the Word anoints and seals all things: what similarity or ^D fittingness is there of the unction and the seal to the things being anointed and sealed? Therefore, in this regard also, there would not be...

one of all things. For the seal would not be among the things being sealed, neither the unction among the things being anointed; but this is the property of the anointing and sealing Word. For the unction has the fragrance and scent of the One anointing, and those who are anointed, partaking of this, say: "We are the fragrance of Christ." But the seal has the form of Christ who seals, and those who are sealed partake of this, being formed according to it, as the Apostle says: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." And being thus sealed, we logically become ^B partakers of the divine nature, as Peter said, and thus the entire creation partakes of the Word in the Spirit.

And through the Spirit we are all called partakers of God: "Know you not," he says, "that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are." But if the Holy Spirit were a creature, no partaking of God would come to us in Him; but rather we would be joined to a creature, and we would be strangers to the divine nature, as partaking of it in no way. But now, since we are called partakers of Christ and partakers of God, it is shown that the unction and the seal which is in us does not belong to the nature of created things, but to that of the Son, through the Spirit who is in Him, who joins us to the Father. For this John, as was said above, teaching, wrote: "Hereby know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." ^C But if by the partaking of the Spirit we become partakers of the divine nature, one would be insane to say that the Spirit is of the created nature and not of God's. For this reason also, those in whom He comes to be are made gods; and if He makes gods, there is no doubt that His nature is God's.

And yet more clearly for the refutation of this heresy, it is sung in the hundred and third Psalm, as we said above: "You shall take away their breath, and they shall fail, and return to their dust. You shall send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created: and You shall renew the face of the earth." And Paul writes to Titus: "Through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ." If then the Father through the Word creates all things in the Holy Spirit, and renews them: what similarity or kinship does the Creator have ^D with the creatures? Or how at all could the One in whom all things are created be a creature? For such blasphemy is accompanied by the blasphemy against the Son, so that those who speak of the Spirit as a creature must also say that the Word, through whom all things are created, is also a creature. The Spirit is called and is the image of the Son; for, "Whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son."

^A Since the Son is also confessed by them not to be a creature, it follows that His image cannot be a creature either. For such as the image is, such must He be whose image it is. Hence, the Word is reasonably and fittingly confessed not to be a creature, being the image of the Father; therefore, anyone who enumerates the Spirit among created things will necessarily also enumerate the Son among them, thereby blaspheming against the Father on account of the blasphemy against His image.

The Spirit, then, is something other than created things, and has been demonstrated to be rather the property of the Son, and not foreign to God. For as for that clever question of theirs: "If the Spirit is from God, why is He not also called Son?" It has already been shown above to be rash and bold, but it is shown to be none the less so now. For even if the Spirit is not called Son in the Scriptures, but the Spirit of God, still He is said to be in God Himself and from God Himself, as the Apostle wrote. If, however, because the Son is from the Father, He is therefore of His own substance, it is necessary likewise that the Spirit, who is said to be from God, is also the property of the Son according to substance. Certainly, just as the Lord is the Son, so the Spirit Himself is called the spirit of adoption. "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption," ^B and again: "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father." Peter also wrote: "If you be reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you; for the Spirit of glory and of virtue and of God rests upon you." The Lord Himself openly testifies that the Spirit is the Spirit of truth and the Paraclete. From these things it is clear that the Trinity is perfect in Him. In Him, therefore, the Word glorifies created things, and making men gods and sons, He brings them to the Father. But He who joins created things to the Word cannot Himself be a created thing. And He who makes created things sons cannot be foreign to the Son. Otherwise, it would be necessary to seek another Spirit, so that this one could be joined to the Word in Him. But this is absurd. Therefore, it must be confessed that the Spirit is not from things that are made, but is proper to the divinity of the Father, in whom even the Word makes created things gods. And that in which the creation is made divine, ^C cannot itself be outside of the divinity of the Father. The Word renders created things partakers of the divine nature; He Himself cannot be outside the Father’s divinity.

That the Spirit is above the creation, and is something other than the nature of created things, but proper to the divinity, can be understood again from this: the Holy Spirit is unchangeable and free from variation. "The holy spirit of discipline," he says, "will flee deceit, and will remove Himself from thoughts that are without understanding." And Peter says: "In the incorruptibility of a meek and quiet Spirit." And again it is read in Wisdom: "For your incorruptible Spirit is in all," ^D

^A who knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God who is in him? But with God, as James says, there is no “transmutation nor shadow of change.” Therefore, the Holy Spirit, being in God, must justly and deservedly be considered immutable, incorrupt and free from all change. But the nature of created and made things is mutable, inasmuch as it is outside the substance of God and has come into being out of nothing. For “all men,” he says, “are liars.” And, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And the angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their own dwelling, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day. And in Job: “If He does not trust His holy angels, and against His angels He charges some error, then the stars are not clean in His sight.” And Paul writes: “Do you not know that we shall judge angels, how much more things that pertain to this life?” Furthermore, we have heard that the devil, who was in the midst of the cherubim and was a seal of likeness, fell from heaven like lightning. ^B If such is the nature of created things, and such things are written concerning the angels; but on the contrary, the Spirit is the same and free from all mutation, and is a participant in the immutability of the Son, remaining always with Him immutable, what similarity, I ask, is there between the immutable and the mutable? From this, it is evident that He is neither a created thing nor does He belong to the nature of the angels (who are mutable), but is the image of the Word and the peculiar property of the Father. Furthermore, the Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world. For so David sang: “Where shall I go from Your Spirit?” And again it is written in Wisdom: “For Your incorruptible Spirit is in all things.” But all created things exist in divided places: for instance, the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, and the clouds in the air; and He has set the boundaries of the nations for men; ^C and angels are sent for ministries. “And the angels of God came to stand before the Lord,” as it is written in Job; and, “Jacob the patriarch dreamed; and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending upon it.” If, therefore, the Spirit fills all things, and is present in the Word in the midst of all, but the angels fall short of this, and are only present where they are sent, then there is no doubt that the Spirit is not a created thing nor an angel, as you dare to argue, but is assuredly to be considered superior to the nature of the angels. ^D For again, from the words of Scripture that we submit, it will be evident that the Holy Spirit makes others participants of Himself, but does not become a participant of others (for it is not tedious to repeat the same things). Indeed, “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God,” and so forth. But the angels and other created things are participants of this Spirit Himself; for this reason, these...

are able to fall away from that of which they are participants, but the Spirit is ever the same. ^A From the same [source], this too: “Go,” He says, “and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The apostles having gone forth, taught thus, and this is the preaching throughout all the earth which is under heaven. Since, therefore, the Church has this as the foundation of her faith, let those men again tell us and answer: Is it a Trinity or a duality? If it is a duality, let the Spirit be counted by you among created things. But if it is a Trinity, as indeed it is, ^B and it has been shown to be indivisible and not dissimilar, it is necessary that its holiness be one, and its eternity and the nature of its immutability one. For just as the faith which is delivered into Him joins one to God, so whoever subtracts anything from the Trinity, and is baptized in the name of the Father alone, or in the name of the Son alone, or in that of the Father and the Son, with the Spirit removed, receives nothing, but remains empty and imperfect, both he himself and he who appears to be baptizing him, since perfection is in the Trinity. Thus, he who separates the Son from the Father, or places the Spirit among created things, ^C neither has the Son nor the Father, but is impious and worse than an infidel, and anything rather than a Christian, and rightly so. For just as there is one baptism delivered in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and one faith is in the Trinity itself, as the Apostle says, so the holy Trinity, being the same in Itself and united with Itself, has nothing in Itself of created things; and this is the indivisible unity of the Trinity, and one is the faith in it. But if, according to the invention of you Tropici, it is not so, but you have dreamt that the Holy Spirit is a created thing, then there is no longer one faith of yours, nor one baptism, but two: one, indeed, into the Father and the Son; ^D the other into an angel who is a created thing; and nothing will remain for you secure or true. For what communion is there between a created thing and its Maker? Or what fellowship is there between inferior created things and the Word by whom these were produced? Surely the blessed Paul, who was not at all ignorant of these things, does not divide the Trinity as you do, but clearly teaching its unity, he wrote to the Corinthians concerning spiritual gifts, and in this way recapitulated all things to one God the Father as the head, saying: “There are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are divisions of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are divisions of operations, but the same God who works all in all.” For what the Spirit distributes to each one, these are granted by the Father through the Word. For all that are the Father’s are also the Son’s; hence the things granted by the Son in the Spirit are truly the Father’s gifts. And when the Spirit is in us, the Word, from whom He receives...

is in us, and the Father is also in the Word. And thus it comes to pass: “We will come, I and the Father, and will make our abode with him,” as has already been said. For where the light is, there the radiance is also; and where the radiance is, there also is its efficacy and its bright grace. And teaching this again, Paul wrote once more to the Corinthians in his second Epistle, saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” For the grace and gift that is granted is granted in the Trinity by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as the grace granted is from the Father through the Son, so there could be no communion of the gift in us if it were not in the Holy Spirit. For being participants of this, we have the love of the Father, and the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Spirit Himself. ^B

From these things, therefore, one efficiency of the Trinity is revealed. For the Apostle does not mean that the things granted are different and divided as if from each [Person individually]; but that the things granted are granted in the Trinity, and all things are from one God. Therefore, he who is not a creature, but is united with the Son just as the Son is united with the Father, who is glorified together with the Father and the Son, and is worshipped intellectually along with the Word, and performs the very things which the Father accomplishes through the Son—how could he who calls him a creature not be impiously contradicting the Son Himself? For there is absolutely nothing that is not brought to pass and enacted through the Word in the Spirit. This is also sung in the Psalms: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all the power of them by the Spirit of His mouth”; and in the one hundred and forty-seventh Psalm: “He will send forth His Word and will melt them; His Spirit shall blow, and the waters will flow.” And we have been justified, as the Apostle said, “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” For the Spirit cannot be separated from the Word. ^C Indeed, when the Lord says, “We will come, I and the Father,” the Spirit enters in no other way than the Son, in order to indwell in us, as Paul writes to the Ephesians: “That He may grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell.” But when the Son is in us, the Father is also present, as the Son Himself testifies: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” Hence, whenever the Word is present in the prophets, they prophesy in that same Holy Spirit. For when the Scripture says, “And the word of the Lord came” to such a prophet, it signifies that he is prophesying in the Holy Spirit. For in Zechariah it is written: “But receive my words and my laws, which I command in My Spirit to My servants the prophets,” ^D when also, after a little, reproving the people, He said: “And they set their heart to be disobedient, so as not to hear My laws and the words which the Lord Almighty sent in His Spirit to the prophets.”

Petrus likewise in the Acts speaks ^A thus: “Men and brethren, the Scripture must needs be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit foretold.” But the absurd fables of the Tropics differ widely from the Scriptures and agree entirely with the folly of the Arian heresy; whence it is likely that they dissembled for no other reason than to deceive the simpler-minded more easily. But thanks be to the Lord that, as you write, they could not conceal their feigned contention with the Arians. For they have also incited the hatred of those men against themselves, in that they say only the Spirit—and not the Word—is a created thing: and they are reprobated by all others, because it is evident that they truly wage war against the Holy Spirit and will therefore soon be dead, being void and destitute of the Spirit. For because they are animal men, they could not, as the blessed Apostle teaches, perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, inasmuch as they are judged spiritually. But those who relish the things of the truth judge all things, but they themselves are judged by no one, since they have within themselves the Lord, who reveals to them in the Spirit both Himself and, through Himself, the Father. For the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught the Samaritan woman by Himself, and through her taught us, how perfect and absolute the holy Trinity is, and that it exists as one undivided Divinity. This, I say, the Truth itself testifies, when He says to the Samaritan woman: “Believe Me, woman, the hour is coming, and now is, when the true adorers will adore the Father in Spirit and in truth. For the Father seeks such to adore Him; God is a Spirit, and those who adore Him must adore Him in Spirit and in truth.” ^B For from this it is clear that the Truth Himself is the Son, as He says: “I am the truth,” whom the prophet David also invoked with these words: “Send forth Your light and Your truth.” True adorers, therefore, will indeed adore the Father, but in Spirit and in truth, by confessing the Son and, in the Son, the Spirit. For the Spirit cannot be separated from the Son, just as the Son cannot be separated from the Father, as the Truth Himself teaches with these words: “I will send to you the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, whom the world cannot receive.”

Likewise concerning the Holy Spirit, from the fourth oration of Basil the Great, in which he disputed against Eunomius.

As the Son is later than the Father in order—for the Father is placed first in the enumeration: “Baptizing them,” He says, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—and furthermore in dignity—for the Son is from the Father, the Father is not from the Son—yet He is equal in nature: “For I,” He says, “and the Father are one”: so also the Holy Spirit is in order indeed after the Son, as has been shown in the enumeration, and surely also in dignity. For the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, as He who is bestowed through the Son: “For God,” he says, “has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts.” But the Son is not called the Spirit's. Yet in nature He is equal to the Father and the Son. For those for whom there is the same action have also the same nature. But Eunomius, paying attention to the order of the enumeration, pronounced Him to be of a third nature. ^D

^A

*From the same oration.* Those things which are created are susceptible to change, either in their essence or in their volition. But the Holy Spirit is susceptible to neither change nor alteration, either in essence or in action. Therefore, the Spirit is not a creature.

*From the same oration.* Every created thing is holy by being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit is not among those who are sanctified, but among those who sanctify. Therefore, He is not a creature.

*From the same oration.* There is nothing created which is holy by essence. For that which is holy by essence does not stand in need of external sanctification. But the Spirit does not need sanctification, because He is holy by essence. Therefore, He is not a creature.

*From the same oration.* Every creature is a servant of the Creator, according to the Prophet who says to God: "All things are Your servants." But one who is a servant cannot offer freedom and adoption to another, which he does not himself possess by nature. Yet the Spirit offers freedom and adoption. For the Spirit cries in our hearts, "Abba, Father." Therefore, he is no longer a servant, but a son. Therefore, He is not a creature. ^B

*From the same oration.* "The firmament," he says, "announces the work of His hands." And in another place: "The heavens are the works of Your hands." But the Prophet himself explains what these incorporeal "hands" of God are—those that fashioned the firmament and the heavens—saying: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were fixed, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their power." And just as this Word in God is not merely spoken, but is living, subsistent, and the actor of all things, so also the Spirit in God is not air that is dispersed and dissolved, but a sanctifying power, ^C substantial, existing, and subsistent.

*From the same oration.* That finger of God, which in Egypt turned the dust into living creatures, revealing the generation of animals from the beginning, was the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. For although three evangelists record that the Son said to the Jews, "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you," Luke reports Him to have said: "If I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of heaven has come upon you." Therefore, the signs that were done through Moses in Egypt were done by the finger of God, and the wondrous signs of God were perfected by the Spirit. Now the Spirit is called the "finger of God" in these signs performed by Moses and by the Lord, not because there is some small power in God—like a finger in a body—but because the gift of signs and healings is one of the gifts in the distribution of His graces; and for this reason He calls this one gift, and not all the graces of the Spirit, the "finger of God." For "to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another the gift of healings in the one Spirit; to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues"—these things, however, ^D

^A one and the same Spirit operates, distributing to each uniquely as He wills. Someone might therefore say that all these things, and whatever other gifts of the Spirit there are, are like His body, and that each one of the gifts is a finger. Do not despise this use of the expression. For when he had said, "All these things the Spirit operates, as He wills," he says of God the same: "And there are divisions of operations, but the same God, who operates all in all." If God operates all things as He wills, and one and the ^B same Spirit operates all these things, distributing to each as He wills, how can there be a diversity of essence where the same power of action is recognized? For according to the opinion of Eunomius, different essences ought to have different actions. But the Savior, testifying that the same authority and power belongs to the Spirit, says, "The Spirit blows where He wills."

*From the same discourse.*

It is the property of God to dismiss sins, since He says Himself, "I am He who blots out your sins," and, "If your sins be as scarlet, I shall make them white as snow; and if they be red like crimson, I shall make them white as wool." But the Lord, breathing ^C upon the apostles, said, "Receive the holy Spirit; whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted to them." If, therefore, it belongs to no one to remit sins, as indeed it does not except to God alone, and yet the Holy Spirit remits them through the apostles, the Holy Spirit is then God, and has the same action as the Father and the Son.

*From the same discourse.*

"Go into Damascus, and there it shall be told to you, for you are a chosen vessel for Me," the Lord said, having appeared to Paul from heaven. And as he entered Damascus, Ananias said, "Brother Saul, look up; the God of our fathers chose you." And so that the expression "God" might not be understood as referring to Christ, he subjoins: "That you might do His will, and know His Just One, Jesus." He truly, leaving his calling ^D and election written down, said: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle." Then he adds something else to the calling: "Set apart for the Gospel of God." But the Acts of the Apostles taught that He who set him apart is the Holy Spirit; for it says, "While the apostles were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for Me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them.'" If the Lord God of the fathers chooses him, but this One sets him apart, the Holy Spirit, using the authority of His nature, how can there be a diversity of essence in the Trinity, in which the same power of action is found?

*From the same discourse.*

The prophet Isaiah said: "I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and the seraphim were standing in a circle around Him; six wings for the one, and six wings for the other." And a little later: "And the Lord said to me, Go, and say to this people: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not know. For the heart of this people has been made fat, and they..."

^A know not. Now, according to the literal position and sequence of the prophetic text, it was the Father who is over all who appeared and spoke to the prophet. But the Son of Thunder, having uttered extraordinary things—things more terrible than thunder, whose property is not that saying, "There was not," but rather, "In the beginning was the Word"—says that it was the Son who appeared and spoke to the prophet. For he says in his own writing: "Therefore they could not believe in Jesus, because Isaiah said of them: He has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory. But Paul attributed this vision and prophecy to the Holy Spirit, saying: "Well did the Holy Spirit speak by Isaiah the prophet to your fathers: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not know. For the heart of this people has been made fat." If they had understood these things, and correctly perceived them—those who are wise to their own destruction—they would not have separated the Spirit from the Godhead.

^B *From the same oration.*

The Holy Spirit is called Christ and Lord, as the Apostle says: "But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." And if Christ is in you, he demonstrates the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. He says further: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Wherefore, the Spirit of the Lord is Lord; not, therefore, a servant, nor created.

*From the same.*

But you say, "If the Son is the image of God, and the Spirit is the image of the Son, why is the Spirit not called the Son of the Son?" For you have used this as a most firm argument to confirm your impiety. For you wish Him to be understood as either a Son or a creature. And because He is not named Son, you blaspheme by asserting that the ^C cause of created things is a creature. We answer, therefore, that to call the Spirit "Son of the Son" would have brought the Trinity of the Godhead into suspicion of a multitude. For it would be easy to suppose that, if a Son were begotten from a Son, then another would be begotten from this one, and again another, and so on to a multitude in succession. For this reason the Apostle clearly proclaimed the Spirit to be from God, saying that we have received the Spirit that is *from God*, and he made it clear that He has been manifested through the Son, by calling Him the Spirit of the Son, just as he also called Him [the Spirit] of the Father, and "the mind of Christ," just as he also called Him the Spirit of God. But he was careful not to call Him "Son of the Son," so that there might be one God the Father, eternally remaining Father, and truly being what He is; and one Son, begotten by eternal generation, who is without beginning with the Father, the true Son of God, always being what He is—namely God, the Word, and Lord; and one Holy Spirit, truly the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures, who is glorified together with the Father and the Son.

*From the same oration.*

But you say, "God makes the Spirit, and makes Him through the Son,

and the words, *All things were made by Him*, also include the Spirit." Thus, the Trinity is demonstrated to you as a duality. For if the Spirit is among all things, how is He with the Father and the Son? But if the Spirit is not with the Father and the Son, how is the Trinity a Trinity, and how is baptism, which is the sanctification of the whole world, from the Trinity? ^A Moreover, you say that He is numbered with the water, as if He were of the creation, just as water is. For the Lord says, *Unless one is born of water and the Spirit*. And this is but a small thing; you even rank the divine Spirit with the fire of Gehenna, because John said, *He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire*. What depth of impiety has this left behind? If you ascribe the dignity of water to the Holy Spirit, since the water is sanctified by the approach of the Spirit, what place do you leave for impiety? For you hold in the same number that which sanctifies and that which is sanctified. And because He uses water for the cleansing of our bodies, you think the Spirit is to be valued at the same price as the water. Although medical skill uses things consisting of matter, you do not, however, consider them equal to the elements, but Mistress of the elements; yet the divine Spirit, making use of water to wash away the stains of sins, you cast down into the abject humility of water. ^B And when the apostles say, *Thus says the Holy Spirit*, as the prophets say, *Thus says the Lord*, and when they call the tempting of the Lord the tempting of the Spirit, when Peter speaks thus to those who were tempting: *Why is it that you have agreed to tempt the Holy Spirit?* and to the same ones: *You have not lied to men, but to God*. But if, again, the apostles say, *It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us*, not arrogating the authority of the Spirit to themselves, but subjecting themselves to Him, as those who had received authority from the Spirit Himself, you attempt to reduce the Spirit into the order of created things, as if they had said that their judgment and His were one, and their authority one. This is just as if you were to say that God is equal to Moses, because it is written: *The people believed God, and Moses His servant*. But great is the difference between a master and a servant, which the writer himself indicated by adding *to Moses His servant*. For God, as Master, is He who sends Moses; but Moses, as servant, is he who is sent. ^C Thus also, it seemed good to the Spirit, as to a Lord, to prescribe the laws of the Church, but to the apostles, as to His servants, it seemed good to give the commands that were proclaimed through them. But the Spirit is not a servant, but Lord; for He says, *The Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty*. And Israel is indeed brought into servitude by the commands, being warned with fear, but the Church of the Christians is adopted, made holy through love. Hence Paul says: *For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father*. Assuredly, he who receives a servant is not himself made a son from a servant; nor would anyone, from the fact that he had become a partaker of a servant, dare to call God Father. Nor does he who is a servant do all things that he wills, which are God’s. Nor, if the Spirit were a servant and a creature, would David say that His presence reaches to all things, calling Him the Face and Hand of God: *Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from Thy face? ^D If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there;*

If I go down into hades, Thou art present. If I take my wings in the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall Thy hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me.* For it is the Spirit that fills all things, according to what is written: *The Spirit of the Lord has filled the world.*

[From the same.]

But why, you ask, did He not add, so that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent, and the Holy Spirit? He does not separate the Spirit from the duality, but on the contrary, He unites Him, showing that the Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son. Since even when Paul says, *As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ*, he surely did not initiate the sanctification without the Father, but in the Son he also indicated the Father. And when he said, *For God revealed to us through His Spirit*, he did not subtract the Son, who says: *No one knows the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal Him.* Even if he does not name the Father, he indicates the Begetter along with the designation of the Son; and even if he does not name the Son, he denotes the Begotten along with the name of the Father. So too, where the Spirit is not named, He is understood in Christ, who bestows Him and imparts Him. Or when the apostles say, *Thus says the Holy Spirit*, do we suppose that the Holy Spirit alone is commanding us and predicting the future, and ^B that the decree and prophecy does not come down from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit? And when the child is said to have been born of the Holy Spirit, shall we assume that the Spirit came to the constitution of the person of the infant without the Word? Yet John says that *the Word was made flesh*, and he ascribes the assumption of flesh to the Word. But through everything it is clear that the Spirit is in the Word, and the Word is in the Spirit, since the unity in the Godhead is not divided. For the taking of the three names enumerates the Trinity and presents it; yet the declaration that belongs to each name has the unity of the Trinity, as *from Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things*, has joined into one name the property of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For *one is God, from whom all things; and one is Lord Jesus, through whom all things; and one is the Holy Spirit, in whom all things.*

^D [From the same.]

But spirit, you say, is called "of man," as in the place: *Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall fail.* And spirit is called "of God," as in that: *My Spirit shall not remain in these men.* And wind is called spirit, as: *His spirit shall blow, and waters shall flow.* And one might find many other things. We say, therefore, in answer to the objection of the adversaries, that if anyone should think that identity is introduced by homonyms, what would he do when many things are called "being," or are named such? Yet this belongs properly to one, to Him who speaks as the Lord and truly God: *I am He who is.* Many are called fathers, and gods, and wise, and powerful, and creators, properties which always belong by nature to God alone. Likewise, things not yet born are called "unbegotten," even though it is destined that they will be born.

Furthermore, that which is not composed of matter is conceived as "unbegotten," as being in no way existing. However, although many things are called by the name of the Word, there is only one eternal Word of God, who is also called God in the Gospel, through whom all things were made. And many are called sons of God in Scripture, as when it is said: "I have begotten and brought up sons" (Isa. 1, 2) and "Israel is my firstborn son" (Exod. 4, 22); yet they are called sons by adoption and grace through the true Son, not by nature and truth, for things are judged by their nature and truth.

^B From the same.

He is called the Image of the Son, the finger of God, the Spirit of God, the Word, the good Spirit, the upright, the sovereign, the Spirit of power, and Lord; and the Spirit of God is called God, just as the Word is. For if the Spirit establishes the powers of the heavens together with God and the Word, how could He be alien, He whom those who receive are the temple of God? He is also called the Spirit of the mouth of God and is shown to be the cause of the creation of the world together with the Word, He who does all things as God, as He wills, according to what the Apostle says. That Spirit of adoption, that author of liberty, who blows divinity where He wills, whom the Lord of all clearly calls the Spirit of truth. He who descended from heaven upon Him in the form of a dove. He who sanctified the Lord's flesh with power, never separated from God. He who knows all the things of God, just as the spirit that is in us knows the things that are ours; I mean the human spirit that is in us. Thus, he says, "What things are of God, no one knows, except the Spirit of God" (I Cor. 2, 11). And again the Savior says: "No one knows the Son, except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him" (Matt. 11, 27). This is similar to that, and that is equal to this: "For God has revealed to us through His Spirit." See, therefore, how sometimes the Father reveals the Son, sometimes the Son the Father, and sometimes the Spirit the Father together with the Son.

^C From the same discourse.

In the creation of the world, it is evident that God is conversing with the Son and the Spirit, even as Moses introduces Him speaking in a human manner and saying: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1, 26). To whom indeed does He say "Let us make," if not to the Word and only-begotten Son, through whom all things were made according to the Evangelist, and the Spirit, of whom it is written: "The divine Spirit which made me" (Job 33, 4)? And although the discourse does not declare of whom He speaks, or whom He addresses, yet it is evident that He is not speaking of Himself alone, from the fact that He says: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us" (Gen. 3, 22). And again: "Come, descending, let us confuse their languages" (Gen. 11, 7), so that you may understand that they are being numbered. For no one would dare to rank angels in equality with the Creator and Lord, nor again is it possible to conceive of one person of God when He says "as one of us" and "Come, and descending let us confuse." It is also evident regarding the Sodom-

-^Aite destruction, it is said: "The Lord rained from the Lord brimstone and fire from heaven." And that which is spoken similarly in the prophet from the person of God: "I overthrew them as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah." And in another way, God speaks as a lover of mankind: "I will save them in the Lord their God," which is not unlike the apostolic phrase which says: "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord in that day."

Of the same: To those who say that much is written concerning the Son and the Father, but concerning the Spirit only at the baptism.

If the Father says: "In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," what shall we say concerning the Son? For it is not written there. And if the prophet says: "There the hinds met, and they saw the faces of one another; they passed over by number, and not one of them was left, because the Lord commanded them, and His Spirit gathered them"—where is the Son? If he says: "A spirit shall go forth from me, and I have made every breath"—where is the Son? If David says: "And take not thy holy Spirit from me"—where is the Son? If the same says: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within my bowels"—where is the Son? If the same says again: "And thy good Spirit shall lead me in the right way"—where is the Son? If the same says: "And establish me with thy free Spirit"—where is the Son? If Job says: ^C "The divine Spirit which created me"—where is the Son? If the same Job says: "There is a spirit in men, but the breath of the Almighty is that which teaches me"—where is the Son? If David says: "Thou shalt send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth"—where is the Son? If he says: "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from thy face?"—where is the Son? If he says: "Woe, apostate children, saith the Lord: Ye have taken counsel, but not by me, and made ^D covenants, but not by my Spirit"—where is the Son? If he says: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise out of the root, and the Spirit of wisdom and understanding shall rest upon him, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of knowledge and of piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him": how am I to separate the Spirit? If he says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me; he hath sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind": how am I to separate the Spirit? And whatever it is possible through study and labor to find, both from the Old Scripture and from the New Testament, concerning the Spirit and the Son and the Father. "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son." When Mary said: "How shall I know this, seeing I know not a man?" the angel says to her: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." And the same angel says again to Joseph: "Fear not to take Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Spirit."

^A And again, the evangelist, interpreting what is in the prophet, says: "That it might be fulfilled which was written: Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased, I will put my Spirit upon him." And in the Gospel it is written: "The Spirit breathes where he wills, and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he comes, and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." And similarly in the Gospel: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come upon you." And again it is written: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not have forgiveness." And at the baptism the Holy Spirit descended, and remained upon him; but the angels descended and ministered to him ^B. That you may know that the angels indeed descended to minister, to show their service; but the Spirit remained upon him, that having heard of the indwelling, you might understand the freedom of his nature. It is written also: "And the Father abiding in me, he does the works." And again it is written: "And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted by the devil." And again: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." And again: "I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Paraclete will not come unto you, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father."

But if they should say: "The Spirit does not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak"; to them we say: Neither does the Son speak of himself. "But the Father who sent me," he says, "he has told me what I should say and what I should speak." For all things whatsoever the Spirit and the Son speak are the oracles of God. ^C And for this reason "every Scripture is divinely inspired, and is profitable," as having been spoken by the Spirit. And indeed this truly shows that the Spirit is not a creature, since every rational creature sometimes speaks from itself, and sometimes speaks the things of God, as when Paul says: "Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord." And "unto them that are married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." And the prophet: "O Lord, I will speak judgments unto thee; why do the wicked prosper?" And again: "Woe is me, mother, as whom have you borne me!" But sometimes he says: "Thus saith the Lord." And sometimes Moses: "I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue." But sometimes the same person says: "Thus saith the Lord: Let my people go, that they may serve me." ^D But the Spirit is not so. For he does not at one time speak his own things, and at another the things of God; for this would be the nature of a creature. But all the things of the Spirit...

are the oracles of God; similarly, also, the things of the Son. For this reason, neither does the Son speak from himself. For the Father who sent me, he says, told me what I should say and what I should speak. ^A

From the same, from the Thirty Chapters to Amphilochius, chapter 9. Separate thoughts concerning the Holy Spirit, following the doctrine of the Scriptures.

Title XII.

^BNow then, let us also examine what our common conceptions concerning the Spirit are, both those gathered for us from the Scriptures and those we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers. First of all, then, who, upon hearing the titles of the Spirit, is not roused in his soul and does not lift his thought to the highest nature? For he is called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father; the Spirit of rectitude, the Spirit of dominion. The Holy Spirit is his chief and peculiar title—a name which, more than any other, declares that which is incorporeal and purely immaterial and simple. For this reason also, the Lord, when teaching the woman who thought that God must be worshipped in a particular place, that the incorporeal cannot be grasped, says, "God is Spirit." It is not possible, therefore, for one who hears "Spirit" to impress upon his mind a circumscribed nature, or one subject to changes and alterations, or one altogether like a creature; but, in progressing in thought to that which is highest, it is necessary to conceive of an intelligent substance, infinite in power, uncircumscribed in magnitude, receiving neither the dimension of times nor of ages, bestowing abundantly the goods that he possesses. To him all things turn that are in need of sanctification; him all things crave according to the power of those living, by whose inspiration they are as if irrigated and aided, that they may arrive at their own proper and natural end. ^C He perfects the rest, but he himself in nothing lacks; he does not live by renewal, but supplies life; he does not increase by additions, but is perfect at once; he is established in himself and is everywhere present. The source of sanctification, an intelligible light, providing for every rational power, as a kind of illumination, a discovery of truth from himself. Inaccessible by nature; graspable on account of his goodness; filling all things with power, but communicable only to those who are worthy, to whom he does not impart himself in the same measure, but distributes his power according to the proportion of faith. Simple in essence, varied in powers; whole to each one present, and whole everywhere. Being thus divided (as it were) and yet remaining whole, he is participated in as the solar ray is, whose grace, being present to the one enjoying it as if only to him, illuminates both land and sea, and is mingled with the air. So too, the Spirit, though present to each of the recipients as if only to them, sheds his grace complete and sufficient upon all; which those who partake of him enjoy as much as they are naturally able, not as much as he is able.

The union of the Spirit with the soul is not a coming near through place (for how ^D could you approach the

^A incorporeal in a corporeal manner?), but a withdrawal from the passions which, arising in the soul later because of its friendship toward the flesh, alienated it from fellowship with God. Therefore, if anyone is cleansed from the defilement which he had contracted through wickedness, and, having returned to his natural beauty, restores the ancient form through purity as though it were a royal image, only in this way can he approach the Paraclete. And He, like the sun, having obtained a cleansed eye, will show you in Himself the image of Him who cannot be seen. In the blessed contemplation of this image, you will behold the ineffable beauty of the Archetype. Through Him hearts are lifted on high, the infirm are led by the hand, and those who are progressing are brought to perfection. This, shining upon those who have been cleansed from every stain, shows them to be spiritual through the communion they have with Him. And just as bright and transparent bodies, when a ray falls upon them, become themselves exceedingly radiant and pour forth another brightness from themselves, so too souls that carry the Spirit, and are illuminated by the Spirit, become themselves spiritual and emit grace into others. Hence comes the foreknowledge of future things, the understanding of mysteries, the comprehension of hidden things, the distribution of gifts, conversation in heaven, the choir with the angels; hence comes joy that never ends, hence perseverance in God, hence likeness to God, and—which is the most sublime thing that can be sought—hence it comes to be a god.

BY THE SAME, AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT OUGHT NOT TO BE JOINED TO THE FATHER AND THE SON. Chapter 10.

It is not right, they say, to join the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, partly because He is of an alien nature, and partly because He is inferior in dignity. ^C To whom it is fitting to reply with the words of the apostles, that "we must obey God rather than men." For if the Lord clearly, in delivering the saving baptism, commanded the disciples to baptize all nations "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," not disdaining fellowship with Him, while these men say that it is not right to join the Spirit to the Father and the Son, do they not openly oppose the command of God? For if they say that such a union does not declare any communion or fellowship, let them say what it is appropriate to think this implies, and what other more specific manner of fellowship they can offer? And indeed, if the Lord did not join the Spirit to Himself and the Father in baptism, let them not blame us for joining them. For we neither think nor speak anything different. But if the Spirit is joined there to the Father and the Son—and no one is so shameless as to say otherwise—let them not call us to account if we follow the things that are written. ^D But the preparation for the war against us is drawn up, and every thought is directed against us, and the tongues of the blasphemers shoot here more fiercely than those who killed Christ once pelted Stephen with stones. But let it not escape notice that while outwardly they

^A prepare their engines and ambushes against us, and encourage one another to bring help, each according to their own experience or strength, the target of their attack is the faith itself. And the common goal of all those adversaries and enemies of sound doctrine is to shake the foundation of faith in Christ, by leveling and abolishing the apostolic tradition. For this reason, like those debtors who are supposedly honest, they demand proofs from Scripture with an outcry, rejecting the unwritten testimony of the Fathers as if it were of no value. But we shall not shrink from the truth, nor through cowardice betray the alliance. For if the Lord handed down the conjunction of the Holy Spirit with the Father as a necessary and saving dogma, but it does not seem so to them—rather, they choose to divide and dismember Him and demote Him to a servile nature—is it not true that for them their own blasphemy has more weight than the Lord’s prescription? Come then, let us put aside all contention and thus discuss among ourselves the matters at hand. ^B

Whence are we Christians? By faith, anyone would say. And in what manner are we saved? By being regenerated, clearly, through the grace bestowed in baptism. For whence else? Then, having known this salvation as confirmed through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, shall we cast aside the form of doctrine which we received? That would indeed be worthy of many groans, if we were found to be further from our salvation now than when we believed; if the things we then received, we now deny. The loss is equal and the same, whether one departs from life without baptism or receives baptism while lacking any one of the things delivered to us. And whoever does not keep at every moment the profession which we deposited at our first initiation, when, having been freed from idols, we approached the living God, and does not embrace it through his whole life as a most secure bulwark, renders himself alien to the promises of God, fighting against his own handwriting which he deposited ^C in the profession of faith. For if baptism is the beginning of my life, and that day of regeneration is the first of all days, it is clear that the voice pronounced in the grace of adoption is also the most precious of all. Shall I then, seduced by the plausible arguments of these men, abandon the tradition that brings me to the light, that has bestowed on me the knowledge of God, through which I was proven a child of God—I who previously, on account of sin, was an enemy? No, rather I pray for myself to depart to the Lord with this profession, and I urge them also to keep the faith inviolate until the day of Christ, and to guard the Spirit as inseparable from the Father and the Son, preserving the doctrine of baptism both in the profession of faith and in the final glorification.

Of the same.

To whom is woe? To whom is affliction? To whom is perplexity and darkness? To whom is eternal condemnation? Is it not to the transgressors? Is it not to those

who have denied the faith? ^A And what/who is the proof of the denial? Is it not that they have rendered their own confessions void? But what did they confess, or when? They confessed that they believe in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, when, renouncing the devil and his angels, they uttered that saving voice. What name, then, has been found worthy by the children of light for these men? Are they not called runaways and transgressors, as those who have violated their own covenants of salvation? What name, therefore, shall I use for one who has denied God? What for one who has denied Christ? What else but that of a transgressor and a deserter? And what name would you have me impose upon one who has denied the Spirit? Is it not this very same, seeing that he has violated the covenant made with God? Therefore, since the confession of faith in the Spirit procures for us the blessedness of piety, and denial makes one liable to the crime of godlessness, is it not a terrible thing ^B now to reject this, not fearing fire, nor sword, nor cross, nor scourges, nor the wheel, nor instruments of torture, but to be led astray by the mere sophistries and seductions of those who are rebels against the Spirit? I testify to every man confessing Christ and denying God, that Christ will profit him nothing; or to one invoking God but despising the Son, that his faith is vain. Likewise to him who rejects the Spirit, I testify that his faith by which he confesses the Father and the Son will be vain: for he cannot possess it unless the Spirit is present at the same time. For he who does not believe in the Spirit does not believe in the Son; nor does he believe in the Father who does not believe in the Son. For no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit; and, "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him to us." Moreover, such a person is devoid of true worship. For it is not possible for anyone to worship the Son ^C except in the Holy Spirit, or to call upon the Father except in the Spirit of adoption.

Of the same, against those who say that it suffices to be baptized only in the name of the Lord. Chapter 12.

Let no one be led into error by that word of the Apostle, that he frequently omits the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in the remembrance of baptism, nor let him think for that reason that the invocation of the names is indifferent. "Whoever," he says, "you have been baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ"; and again, "Whoever you have been baptized into Christ, you have been baptized into his death." For the appellation of Christ is a confession of the whole: ^D for it declares the God who anointed, and the Son who was anointed, and the Spirit who is the anointing—as we have learned from Peter in the Acts: "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit"; and in Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me"; and that Psalmist, "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions." Yet sometimes the Apostle also appears

[GREEK COLUMN] 749 PANOPLIA DOGMATICA. - TIT XII.

themselves from your fellows. Yet the Apostle appears to have made mention of the Spirit alone in baptism. For all, he says, were baptized in one body into one Spirit. Consistent with this is also the statement, "But you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit," and, "He himself shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit." Yet one ought not therefore to say that a baptism in which only the name of the Spirit has been invoked is perfect. For the tradition given in the life-giving grace must always remain inviolable. For He who redeemed our life from corruption gave us the power of renewal, which, while having an ineffable cause and being contained within a mystery, yet brings great salvation to souls; so that to add or subtract anything from it is clearly a falling away from eternal life. If, therefore, in baptism, the separation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is dangerous for him who baptizes, and useless to him who receives it, how is it safe for us to tear the Spirit away from the Father and the Son? Faith and baptism are two modes of salvation, congenitally linked, inseparable. For faith is perfected through baptism, and baptism is grounded through faith, and both are fulfilled by the same names. For just as we believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so also we are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And the confession goes before, introducing us to salvation; ^C but baptism follows, sealing our consent.

The reason assigned why angels are coupled with the Father and the Son in Paul. Chapter 13.

But, they say, there are other things that are enumerated together with the Father and the Son, yet are not by any means glorified together with them. Just as the Apostle took angels with him in the testimony addressed to Timothy, saying, "I charge you in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and his elect angels"; whom we neither alienate from the rest of creation, nor do we endure to enumerate them with the Father and the Son. But I, even if the argument is worthy of no answer, seeing its absurdity is so manifest, nevertheless say this: that a person might perhaps produce a fellow-servant as a witness before a gentle and mild judge, and especially one who, in his leniency toward those being judged, demonstrates the indisputable justice of his judgments. ^D But for one to be free from being a slave, and to be called a son of God, and to be made alive from death, can be granted by no one else than Him who possesses the natural kinship and has been delivered from servile status. For how will he who is an alien make one a kinsman of God? And how will he who is himself subject to the yoke of slavery give freedom? Therefore, the mention of the Spirit and of the angels is not for the same reasons; but the Spirit is invoked as the Lord of life, while the angels are brought in as helpers of their fellow-servants and faithful witnesses of the truth. For it is the custom of the saints to entrust the commandments of God in the presence of witnesses, as he himself says to Timothy: "What you have received from me in the presence of [many witnesses]..."

entrust to faithful men." And now he calls upon the angels as witnesses; for he knows that angels will be present with the Judge, when He comes in the glory of the Father to judge the world in righteousness. For whoever, he says, confesses me before men, the Son of Man will also confess him before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And Paul says elsewhere, "At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels." For this reason he now testifies here before the angels, preparing for himself distinguished proofs for that great tribunal. ^A

Chapter 14. That we are baptized into the divine nature.

But, they say, even if we are baptized into him, it is still not right for him to be ranked with God. For some were also baptized into Moses, in the cloud and in the sea. Similarly, faith in men is also acknowledged to have existed. For the people believed in God and in Moses His servant. Why, then, say they, do you so exalt and magnify the Holy Spirit above creation, because of faith and baptism, when the same things are already attested to for men? What, then, shall we say? It is that faith in the Spirit is equal to that in the Father and in the Son; and likewise baptism. But if [there is baptism] into Moses and the cloud, it is as into a shadow and a ^B type. For it is not the case that, because divine things are prefigured by low and human things, the nature of divine things is itself low, which the shadowing of types has often signified beforehand. For a type is a declaration of things expected through imitation, indicatingively foreshadowing what is to come. As Adam was a type of the one to come, and the rock was typically Christ; and the water flowing from the rock was a figure of the vital power of the Word. "For if anyone," he says, "thirsts, let him come to me, and drink." And the manna was a type of the living bread which descended from heaven; and the serpent placed upon the banner [was a type] of the saving passion accomplished through the cross; wherefore those who looked upon it were saved. ^C In the same way, the things written concerning the exodus of Israel are recorded for the signification of those who are saved through baptism. For the firstborn of the Israelites were saved, just as the bodies of the baptized are, with grace being given to those who were marked by the blood. For the blood of the sheep was a type of the blood of Christ; but the firstborn were a type of the first-created man; since he necessarily exists in us, being transmitted through the sequence of succession until the end, therefore in Adam we all die, and death reigned until the fulfillment of the law and the coming of Christ. ^D

^B the firstborn were preserved by God, so that the destroyer might not touch them, as a demonstration that we no longer die in Adam, having been made alive in Christ. But the sea and the cloud, for the present, led them to faith by means of the astonishment they caused, while for the future they prefigured, as a type, the grace that was to come. "Who is wise, and will understand these things?" How the sea [was] a baptism in type, creating a separation from Pharaoh, just as this bath [does] from the tyranny of the devil. That [sea] slew the enemy within itself; here too, our enmity towards God dies. The people came out from it unharmed; we too ascend from the waters as if alive from the dead, saved by the grace of him who called us. The cloud, moreover, was a shadow of the gift of the Spirit, who cools the flame of the passions by the mortification of the members.

What then? Because they were baptized typically into Moses, is the grace of baptism therefore small? ^C In this way, none of our other mysteries would be great either, if we were to disparage the dignity in each of them through these types. For neither would the love of God towards men be something great and supernatural, He who gave His only-begotten Son for our sins—since even Abraham did not spare his own son; nor would the passion of the Lord be glorious, since a ram in place of Isaac fulfilled the type of the offering; nor would the descent into Hades be fearful, since Jonah in three days and as many nights fulfilled beforehand the type of death. He therefore does the same regarding baptism who compares the truth with the shadow, and likens the things signified by them to the types, and who attempts to disparage the entire evangelical dispensation through Moses and the sea. For what forgiveness of transgressions, what renewal of life [was there] in the sea? What spiritual gift through Moses? What mortification of sin there? They did not die together with Christ there; wherefore they were not raised together with Him either. They did not bear the image of the heavenly [one], they did not carry about the mortification of Jesus in their body, they did not put off the old man, they did not put on the new one, who is being renewed unto knowledge, according to the image of Him who created him. Why do you compare the baptisms, of which the name alone is common, but the difference between the things [themselves] is as great as would be that of a dream to the truth, or of a shadow and images to the things which subsist in essence? ^D

But neither does the faith in Moses show the faith in the Spirit to be of little worth; but according to the reasoning of these men, it rather diminishes the confession which we profess regarding the God of all. For he says: "The people believed in God, and in Moses His servant." To God, therefore, was he joined, not to the Spirit; and he was a type, not of the Spirit, but of Christ. For the mediator of God and men he was then prefiguring through himself in the ministry of the law. For not even the Spirit

^A was a type of Moses, since he was a mediator for the people with God. For the law was given, ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator (that is to say, of Moses), according to the provocation of the people saying: "Speak thou to us, and let not God speak to us." So faith in him is referred to the Lord, the mediator of God and men, who said: "If you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me." Is, therefore, faith in the Lord of little moment because it was prefigured through Moses? Thus, neither is the grace of the Spirit in baptism small if anyone has been baptized into Moses. And yet I have it to say that it is customary for Scripture to signify the law by the name of Moses, as in that: "They have Moses and the prophets." Therefore, speaking of the legal baptism, he said: "They were baptized in Moses." Why, then, do those who calumniate the truth by means of the shadow and the types attempt to render despicable ^B the boast of our hope and that rich gift of our God and Savior, who renews our youth as the eagle's through regeneration? Indeed, it is of a mind utterly childish, and of a boy who truly has need of milk, to be ignorant of that great mystery of our salvation: that just as we are accustomed to be introduced to the learning of disciplines, so in the exercise of piety, while we are being led to perfection, we are first instructed in things which are more easily perceived, and whose knowledge is fitting for us, as it were, in the first elements; by God who governs us, who, as one training eyes nourished in darkness, leads them little by little ^C toward the great light of truth. For sparing our weakness, in the depth of the abundance of his wisdom, and in the unsearchable judgments of his understanding, he provided this gentle and appropriate instruction for us, accustoming us first to look upon shadows of bodies, and to behold the sun in the waters, lest we be immediately blinded, struck by the spectacle of pure light. For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and the delineation made of old through the prophets, which is an enigma of the truth, were devised as exercises for the eyes of the heart: so that there might be from these an easy transition for us ^D to the wisdom hidden in mystery.

Of the same, that the Holy Spirit is inseparable in every notion from the Father and the Son, whether in the creation of intelligible creatures, or in the dispensation of human affairs, or in the judgment which is expected. Chapter 16.

Let us return, therefore, to what was proposed at the beginning, that in all things the Holy Spirit is inseparable and absolutely undistracted from the Father and the Son. Paul, writing to the Corinthians in that place where he treats of the gift of tongues, says: "If all prophesy, and there comes in one that is an unbeliever or an unlearned person, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so, falling on his face, he will worship...

God, declaring that God is in you of a truth. ^A If, therefore, God is recognized to be in the prophets by the prophecy which is brought forth according to the distribution of the gifts of the Spirit, let these people deliberate what place they will assign to the Holy Spirit: whether it is more just to join Him with God, or to thrust Him down to the order of created things. Moreover, those words of Peter to Sapphira, "Why is it that it has been agreed upon by you to tempt the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God," ^B show that the same sins are against the Holy Spirit and against God. And by this method you will also be able to learn that the Holy Spirit is joined in every operation and is inseparable from the Father and the Son. While God effects the divisions of operations, and the Lord the divisions of ministrations, the Holy Spirit is simultaneously present, dispensing the distribution of gifts according to the dignity of each person by His own authority. "For," he says, "there are divisions of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are divisions of ministrations, but the same Lord. And there are divisions of operations, but the same God, who works all in all. But all these things," he says, "one and the same Spirit works, dividing to each one individually as He wills." However, because the Apostle mentions the Spirit in the first place here, the Son in the second, and God and Father in the third, one must by no means think that the order is strictly inverted. For he took his starting point from our relationship; since, when we receive the gifts, the one who distributes them occurs to us first; then we think of the one who sent Him; ^C finally, we lead our thought to the source and author of blessings.

You may also learn the communion of the Spirit with the Father and the Son from the things created in the beginning. For pure, intelligent, and supermundane powers are both holy and are so named, having acquired holiness through the grace infused by the Holy Spirit. On this account, the manner of the creation of the heavenly powers has been passed over in silence; for he who wrote the history of the creation of the world revealed the Creator to us only from among sensible things. But you, having the faculty to contemplate the invisible from the visible, glorify the Maker in whom all things were created, whether visible or invisible, whether principalities, or powers, or virtues, or thrones, or lordships, and if there are any other rational natures that cannot be named. ^D In the creation of these things, then, think for me of the primary cause of the things that come into being, the Father; the creative cause, the Son; the perfecting cause, the Spirit; so that by the will of the Father they are ministering spirits, by the operation of the Son they are brought into being, and by the presence of the Spirit they are perfected. The perfection of the angels is sanctification, and perseverance therein. And let no one think that I am suggesting three original hypostases, or claiming that the operation of the Son is incomplete. For the beginning of existing things is one,

creating through the Son and perfecting in the Spirit. ^A And neither does the Father, who works all things in all, have an imperfect operation; nor does the Son have an incomplete creation, one that is not perfected by the Spirit. For in this way, the Father would neither be dependent on the Son, creating by will alone through the Son—though He does indeed will—nor would He be dependent on cooperation, for He operates according to the likeness of the Father; but the Son also wills to perfect through the Spirit. For by the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their might. Neither, therefore, is the Word a significant pulsation of air brought forth by vocal organs, nor is the Spirit of mouth the breath expelled from the respiratory parts; but the Word is He who was in the beginning with God, and was God; and the Spirit of the mouth of God is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. Understand, therefore, three things: the Lord commanding, the Word creating, and the Spirit strengthening. And ^B what else could "strengthening" be but perfection in holiness, since the word "strengthening" signifies constancy, immutability, and solidity in what is good? Now, sanctification is not apart from the Spirit. For the heavenly powers are not holy by their own nature; otherwise, they would have no difference from the Holy Spirit. Rather, they have the measure of sanctification from the Spirit according to the proportion in which they excel one another. For just as a cauterizing iron is conceived of together with fire, and yet the subject matter is one thing and the fire another, so also with the heavenly powers: their substance is, as it were, an airy spirit or an immaterial fire, according to that which is written: *Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire* ^C; wherefore they are also in a place, and become visible, appearing to those who are worthy in the form of their own bodies. But sanctification, being external to their substance, brings perfection to them through communion with the Spirit. They preserve their dignity, however, by perseverance in the good; for while they have free will in choosing, they never fall away from the fellowship of Him who is truly good. So that, if you were to remove the Spirit by reasoning, the choirs of angels would be dissolved, the orders of the archangels would be taken away, and all things would be thrown into confusion; their life would be subject to no law, no order, no rule. For how would the angels say, *Glory to God in the highest* ^D, unless they had received power from the Spirit? For *no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit*, and *no one speaking in the Spirit of God says "Jesus is anathema"*—which indeed the wicked and opposing spirits would say, whose fall proves what we are saying: that the invisible powers are of their own will, capable of turning equally toward virtue and toward vice, and for this reason they have need of the help of the Spirit. As for myself, I believe that Gabriel also predicts the future in no other way than by the foreknowledge of the Spirit. For among the gifts from the division of the Spirit is prophecy.

^A And he who was commanded to declare the mysteries of the vision to the man of desires—whence had he obtained the wisdom to be able to teach the hidden things, if not through the Holy Spirit? Since the disclosure of mysteries pertains uniquely to the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written: "To us God has revealed them through the Spirit." And the Thrones and Dominations, and Principalities and Powers, how could they lead their blessed life, if they did not always behold the face of the Father who is in heaven? But the vision is not without the Spirit. For just as in the night, if you take away the lamp from the house, the eyes are blind, the faculties are left inactive, and the value of things is not recognized, but through ignorance gold is trampled upon just like iron: so in the spiritual order, it is impossible for that pious and holy life to continue without the Spirit; no more truly than an army can continue in good order if the commander is absent, or a choir in harmony if the leader does not temper the melody. How could the Seraphim ^B say "Holy, holy, holy," had they not been taught by the Spirit how often it is pious to proclaim this doxology? Whether, therefore, all his angels praise God, and all his powers praise him, it is done by the cooperation of the Spirit; or whether thousands of thousands of angels and ten thousand times ten thousand ministers stand by, they perform their proper work blamelessly in the power of the Spirit. Therefore, that whole supercelestial and ineffable harmony, both in the worship of God and in the concord of the ultramundane powers among themselves, could by no means be preserved if the Spirit did not preside over it. Thus, then, in the creation, to those who do not arrive at perfection by progress, but are perfect immediately from their very creation, the Holy Spirit is present; in this, that their substance might be brought to its consummation and fulfilled, he contributes his own grace.

As for the dispensations concerning man, which were accomplished by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ according to the goodness of God, who will deny that they were fulfilled through the grace of the Spirit? Whether you wish to look at the ancient things—the blessings of the patriarchs, the help given through the Law, the types, the prophecies, the feats performed in wars, the miracles wrought ^C through the saints—or at those things dispensed concerning the Lord’s advent in the flesh: they were performed through the Spirit. For first, he was present to the very flesh of the Lord, having become an anointing and inseparably conjoined to it, just as it is written: "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is my beloved Son"; and, "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit." Thereafter, every action was performed while the Spirit was present. He was present even when he was tempted by the devil. For he says, "Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted." Then, as he performed miracles, he was ^D inseparably present. For he says, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons."

Even when he rose from the dead, the Spirit did not depart from him. For the Lord, when renewing man and giving back again the grace which he had lost, which he had received from the breath of God, because he had breathed into the face of his disciples—what does he say? "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; and if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." And is not the ordering and governance of the Church carried out clearly and beyond contradiction through the Holy Spirit? For he says, "God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." ^B For this order is arranged according to the distribution of the gifts from the Spirit.

One would find, if one calculates accurately, that not even in that time when the expected appearing of the Lord from heaven occurs will the Holy Spirit be idle, as some think; but he will also be present on that day of his revelation, in which the blessed and only Potentate will judge the world in righteousness. For who is so ignorant of the good things which God has prepared for the worthy as to be unaware that the crown of the righteous is the grace of the Spirit, which will then be bestowed more lavishly and more perfectly, distributed to everyone in spiritual glory according to their right actions? For "in the splendors of the saints there are many dwelling-places with the Father," ^C that is, differences in rank. "For star differs from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead." Therefore, those who have been sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption, and who have kept the first fruits of the Spirit which they received pure and unimpaired, these are they who will hear: "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many." Likewise, those who have grieved the Holy Spirit by the wickedness of their practices, or who have not made gain from the lot given to them, that which they have received will be taken away from them, with the grace being transferred to others: or, according to one of the evangelists, they will also be utterly "cut in two"; since the cutting in two is to be understood ^D in this sense, that they will be altogether alienated from the Holy Spirit. For the body is not divided, so that one part is delivered to punishment and the other is set free; for that is indeed a fable, and not worthy of a just judge, that when a person has sinned in his entirety, half of him should be sentenced to punishment. Nor is the soul cut in two, since it has possessed the sinful disposition throughout its entirety, and has worked evil in conjunction with the body. But the "cutting in two," as I said, is the perpetual alienation of the soul from the Spirit. For now, although he is not united with the unworthy, yet he seems to be present in some way to those once baptized, awaiting their salvation through conversion; but then he will be cut off altogether from the soul that has profaned his grace. And therefore there is no one in hell who will confess—

nor in death is there anyone who remembers God, when the assistance of the Spirit is no longer present. How, then, is it possible to conceive that the judgment is accomplished without the Holy Spirit, when the Word shows that it is he who is the reward of the just, when the perfect is bestowed in place of the earnest; and the first condemnation of sinners, when even that which they seem to have is taken away from them? ^A And the greatest proof of the conjunction which the Spirit has with the Father and the Son is the fact that he is said to have the same relationship towards God as the spirit which is in us has towards each one of us. "For who among men," he says, "knows the things of a man, unless the spirit that is in him?" Likewise, "No one knows the things of God, except the Spirit who is from God."

Chapter 19

"Be it so," they say; "but that glory is not at all owed to the Spirit, such that he should be exalted by our ^B glorifications." From where, then, could we obtain proofs of the value of the Spirit, which surpasses every intellect, if the communion of the Father and the Son is considered by them not reliable enough to testify to his dignity? It is possible, however, for us—by looking at what is signified by his names, and at the magnitude of his operations, and at the benefits granted to us, or rather to every creature—to arrive at some comprehension of his majesty and incomprehensible power. He is named Spirit, as in: "God is Spirit"; and, "The Spirit of our presence, Christ the Lord." He is called Holy, just as the Father is holy, and the Son is holy. For to the creature holiness is brought in from elsewhere, but in the Spirit, holiness is the completion of his nature. ^C Therefore he is not sanctified, but he is the one who sanctifies. He is called Good, as the Father is good, and he who is born of the Good is good; possessing goodness as his essence. He is called Upright, as the Lord God is upright; being himself the Truth itself, and Justice itself, having no turnings or declensions to either side because of the unchangeability of his essence. He is called Paraclete, as is the Only-Begotten; just as he himself says: "I will ask my Father, and he will give you another Paraclete." In this way, the names are common to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who has these appellations from the fellowship of his nature. For whence else would he have them? Again, he is called Princely, and Spirit of truth, and Spirit of wisdom. "The divine Spirit is that which made me." ^D And, "He filled Beseleel," he says, "with a divine Spirit of wisdom and discernment and knowledge." Such names, therefore, are indeed exceeding and great, yet they possess no exaggeration regarding his glory.

But what are his operations? Ineffable because of their magnitude, and innumerable because of their multitude. For how shall we conceive of those things which were before the ages? What were his operations before the intelligible creation? How many are the graces from him upon the creation? And what is the power concerning the ages that are to come? The

^A truth is that he pre-existed and co-existed with the Father and the Son before the ages. So, even if you conceive of something beyond the ages, you will find it to be subordinate to the Spirit. And if you consider the creation, the powers of the heavens were established by the Spirit; the establishment signifies, clearly, the immutability ^B of the state in regard to the good. For the intimacy with God, and the unchangeableness toward evil, and the duration in blessedness, come to those powers from the Spirit. The advent of Christ: the Spirit goes before. The advent in the flesh: and the Spirit is inseparable. The operations of powers, the gifts of healings, are through the Holy Spirit. Demons were expelled in the Spirit of God. The devil was despoiled of his empire when the Spirit was present with us. The remission of sins is in the grace of the Spirit. "For you were washed and you were sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit." 1 Reconcilliation ^C with God is through the Spirit. "For God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father." 2 The resurrection from the dead is by the energy of the Spirit. "For you will send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth." 3 Whether one understands the creation as the revival of those who were extinguished; is it not a great operation of the Spirit, who provides life to us from the resurrection, and adapts our souls to that spiritual life? Or if the creation should be called the transformation into a better state of those who had fallen here through sin (for it is also used in this way according to the custom of Scripture, as when Paul says: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" 4), the renewal which ^D happens here, and the transition from a terrestrial life subject to turbulent passions to a heavenly manner of life, which happens in us through the Spirit, leads our minds to the highest admiration. In these things, are we to be afraid lest we exceed his dignity with immoderate honors? Or on the contrary, lest we depress the conception of him to lowly things, even if we seem to be speaking the greatest things about him which can be conceived by the human mind and uttered by the human tongue? "Thus says the Holy Spirit," just as "Thus says the Lord: Descend and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them." 5 Are these the words of someone abject and terrified? "Separate for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 6 Does a slave speak thus? And Isaiah: "The Lord has sent me, and his Spirit"; 7 and, "The Spirit descended from the Lord, and led them." 8 But do not again take for me the word 'led' as meaning a lowly ministry. For Scripture testifies that this work is also God's. "You led," it says, "your people like sheep"; 9 and, "Who leadest Joseph like a sheep"; 10 and, "He led them in hope, and they did not fear." 11 Therefore, when you hear, "When the Paraclete comes, he will suggest to you, and he will lead you into all truth," 12 consider the leading as you have been taught; do not falsely misinterpret the thought.

But, he says, "He also intercedes for us." Wherefore, just as a suppliant is inferior to a benefactor, so much has the Spirit, in terms of dignity, fallen away from God. But have you not yet heard concerning the Only-Begotten, that He is at the right hand of God and intercedes for us? Do not, therefore, because the Spirit is in you (if indeed He is in you at all), nor because He teaches and leads us when we have been blinded to the choice of what is beneficial, lose for this reason the pious and holy opinion concerning Him. For this is the height of ingratitude, to make the philanthropy of the benefactor an occasion for ungratefulness. Do not, therefore, grieve the Holy Spirit. Hear what the first of the martyrs, Stephen, says, rebuking the disobedient and insubordinate people: "You," he says, "always resist the Holy Spirit." And again Isaiah: "They provoked the Holy Spirit, and He turned to enmity against them." And elsewhere: "The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord." Hear, I say, do these not declare supreme power? I leave it to the judgment of the readers.

Chapter 20

Neither servant, he says, nor master, but free. O the terrible insensibility, O the pitiable madness of those who say these things! What should I lament more in them: the ignorance, or the blasphemy? They who disgrace the dogmas of theology with human examples, and attempt to adapt to the divine and ineffable nature the custom here, which has a difference of ranks—not realizing that among men there is no one who is naturally a servant. For either they were oppressed by power and brought under the yoke of slavery, as in captivity; or they were enslaved on account of poverty, as the Egyptians to Pharaoh; or according to some wise and secret dispensation, those who are worse among children are, by their parents' decree, sentenced to serve those who are wiser and better—which a fair examiner of events would call not a condemnation, but a benefit. For to him who, because of a lack of sense, does not have within himself the governing principle by nature, it is more beneficial to become the property of another, so that, being directed by the prudence of the one who rules, he may be like a chariot that has received a charioteer, or a ship that has a helmsman sitting at the helm. For this reason Jacob was lord of Esau by the blessing of his father, so that even against his will, the foolish might be benefited by the wise, not having his own guardian, namely the mind. And Chanaan, the son, will be a servant to his brothers, since he was unteachable in virtue, having an imprudent father, namely Cham. Thus, in this way, some become servants; but they are free who have escaped poverty or war, or who are in no need of the care of others. So that even if one is called master and the other servant, all are nevertheless equal in terms of mutual worth, and as creatures of Him who made us, we are fellow-servants. There

furthermore, what can you separate from servanthood? For as soon as things were created, servitude was created along with them. They do not command one another, because heavenly things are free from the desire for gain; but all things are subject to God, rendering the fear that is owed to Him as Lord, and the glory which is due as Creator. For the Son glorifies the Father, and the slave his master ^A. And God absolutely demands one of the two from everyone. For if I am a Father, He says, where is my glory? And if I am Lord, where is my fear? Otherwise, a life not subject to the guardianship and inspection of the Lord would be the most miserable of all. Of this kind are the apostate powers, which, because they have stiffened their necks against God Almighty, refuse servitude, not because they are by nature created differently, but because they do not wish to be subject to the Creator. Whom, then, do you call free? One without a king? One who lacks the power either to rule another or to submit to being ruled? But such a nature does not exist among created things, and to think this of the Spirit is manifest impiety. Wherefore if the Spirit is created, He is in fact a servant alongside all things; for, He says, all things serve you. But if He is above the creature, He is also a sharer in the kingdom.

Testimonies from the Scriptures that the Spirit is called Lord. Chapter 21.

But what need is there, by fighting from humble matters, to prepare a shameful victory for the doctrine, when it is permitted by the juxtaposition of more august things to demonstrate the excellence of the glory, to which no contradiction can be made? If, however, we should bring forward the things which Scripture has taught us, perhaps they will cry out with a great and vehement clamor, and stopping their ears, lifting stones, or whatever might happen to be at hand, each of the Pneumatomachi will arm himself with this as a weapon and rush upon us. But safety is not to be preferred by us to the truth. We find, therefore, in the Apostle: ^C *But may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of Christ for the sake of afflictions.* Who is the Lord directing into the love of God, and into the patience of Christ for the sake of afflictions? Let those who reduce the Spirit to servitude answer us. For if the discourse were about God and the Father, it would certainly have been said: *May the Lord direct you into His own love*; or if about the Son, He would have added, *into His own patience*. Let them seek, therefore, what other person there is who is worthy to be honored with the title of Lord. Closely related to this is also that which is placed elsewhere: *And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love toward one another and toward all, as we also do toward you, for the strengthening of your hearts, irreproachable in holiness before God and our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.* Whom does he entreat as Lord, to establish the hearts of the faithful Thessalonians as irreproachable in holiness before God and our Father ^D at the coming of our Lord? Let them answer us.

They who place the Holy Spirit ^A along with the ministering spirits, who are sent forth for ministry: they have nothing to answer. Wherefore let them hear another testimony, which clearly calls the Holy Spirit Lord. "The Lord," he says, "is the Spirit"; and again, "As from the Lord the Spirit." But that no opportunity for contradiction may remain, I shall bring forward the very words of the Apostle: "For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the Old Testament, not being unveiled, because it is nullified in Christ. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. The Lord is the Spirit." Why does he say this? Because he who sits with the naked understanding of the letter, and is occupied there with legal observances, has his heart covered as if with a veil by the Jewish interpretation of the letter; and he suffers this because he is ignorant that the bodily observance of the law is nullified ^B at the coming of Christ, as the types have now been transferred into the truth. For lamps are idle at the coming of the sun; and the law is at rest, and prophecies fall silent, the truth having appeared. But he who has been able to look into the depth of the legal sense, and having torn away the obscurity of the law, as a thin veil, to enter into the mysteries, he has imitated Moses, who, when conversing with God, takes away the veil, himself also turning from the letter to the spirit. So that the obscurity of the legal teachings corresponds to the veil covering the face of Moses, and the turning to the Lord corresponds to spiritual contemplation. He, therefore, who in the reading of the law removes the letter, turns to the Lord (and the Lord is now called the Spirit), ^C and becomes like Moses, having his face glorified from the appearance of God. For as things placed near bright colors are themselves colored by the splendor flowing from them, so he who clearly directs his eyes toward the Spirit is in a certain way transformed from His glory so as to become more bright, while he is illuminated in his heart by the truth flowing from the Spirit as if by a light. And this is being "transformed from the glory of the Spirit into one's own glory," not sparingly, nor faintly, but to the extent that it is fitting for him to be illuminated who is illuminated by the Spirit. Do you not fear, O man, the Apostle saying: "You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you"? Could he ever have honored a servile dwelling with the name of temple? What of him who calls Scripture divinely inspired, on account of it being written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, does he use words that are insulting and that diminish the Spirit?

Confirmation of the same concerning the nature of the communion of the Spirit, because the Spirit is incomprehensible just as the Father and the Son. Chapter 22.

Not only from the fact that they have the same

appellations, and are partners in operations with the Father and the Son, does the excellence of his nature shine forth, but also from the fact that he is equally incomprehensible to the intellect. For whatever the Lord says concerning the Father—that He is beyond human thought—and whatever He says concerning the Son, the same He says also concerning the Holy Spirit: ^A *Righteous Father, though the world hath not known thee*; by ‘world’ he does not mean here the globe composed of heaven and earth, but this transitory life, subject to countless changes. And speaking of himself, *Yet a little while*, he says, *and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me*. Here again, calling those ‘the world’ who are bound to a material and carnal life and who spend their truth only on their eyes, he signifies that they were no longer to see our Lord with the eyes of the heart, because they did not believe in the resurrection. ^B He said these same things also concerning the Spirit: *The Spirit of truth*, he says, *whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you*. For a carnal man, having a mind unexercised in contemplation—or rather, bearing it entirely buried in the affection of the flesh as if in mud—cannot lift up his eyes to the spiritual light of truth. Therefore the ‘world’—that is, a life addicted to the desires of the flesh—like a weak eye unable to bear the light of the sun’s ray, does not receive the grace of the Spirit. But when the Lord had given this testimony to the disciples, that they were of a clean life because of his teaching, he grants also that they might now be ^C suited for the speculation and contemplation of the Spirit. *Now ye are clean*, he says, *through the word which I have spoken unto you*. Whence the world cannot receive him, since it seeth him not; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you. Isaiah says the same: *He that hath established the earth, and the things that are in it, and hath given breath to the people upon it, and Spirit to them that tread upon it*. For those who trample upon earthly things, and have become superior to them, are declared worthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit. What then must one think he is, or what honors are suitable to him, whom the world cannot contain, and who can be seen only by the holy through the purity of the heart?

^D As for the other powers, each is believed to be in a circumscribed place. For the angel who stood by Cornelius was not, in that same moment, standing by Philip; nor was he who spoke to Zacharias from the altar at the same time fulfilling his own station in heaven. The Spirit, however, is believed to act simultaneously both in Habakkuk and in Daniel in Babylon; and with Jeremiah in the cistern, and with Ezekiel by the river Chebar. For *the Spirit of the Lord hath filled the world*; and, *Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?* the prophet says, *For I am with you, saith the Lord*; and the Spirit

^A hath stood in the midst of you. What manner of nature then ought we to believe Him to be, who is everywhere and present with God? Is it one that embraces all things, or one straitened by particular places, such as the nature of the angels is shown to be by the words? But no one would say this. Therefore, shall we not exalt the nature which is divine by nature, incomprehensible in magnitude, powerful in its operations, and good in its benefits? Shall we not glorify it beyond measure?

That the glorification of the Spirit is the enumeration of the attributes that belong to Him. Chapter 23.

For my part, I consider the glory to consist in nothing else ^B than the enumeration of the wondrous things that belong to Him. Wherefore, either these men will not permit us to remember the good things that proceed from Him, or the exposition of those things which belong to Him is surely the fulfillment of the greatest glorification. For neither have we any other way to glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His only-begotten Son, than by detailing His miracles according to our ability.

Of the same. A refutation of the absurdity of those who do not glorify the Spirit, from the comparison of those things which are glorified in the creatures. Chapter 24.

Then again, the common man is crowned with glory and honor ^C, and glory and honor and peace are stored up for everyone who does good in the promises. There is also a certain specific glory of the people of Israel; to whom, he says, belong the adoption and the glory and the service. And the Psalmist speaks of a certain glory of his own: *When my glory shall sing to thee*; and again, *Arise, my glory*. There is a certain glory of the sun, and of the moon, and of the stars; and according to the Apostle, even the ministration of condemnation is with glory. Since, therefore, there are so many things that are glorified, do you wish the Spirit alone out of all to be without glory? And yet he says, *The ministration of the Spirit is in glory*. How then is He unworthy to be glorified? And indeed the glory of the ^D righteous is great, according to the Psalmist; but according to you, there is no glory of the Spirit at all. How then is the danger not manifest, that by such words we draw upon ourselves an unavoidable sin? If the man who is saved by the works of righteousness glorifies those who fear the Lord, how much less should he defraud the Spirit of the glory that is due to Him. "Be it so," they say, "that He is to be glorified, but not with the Father and the Son." And what reason is there to imagine another place for the Spirit, neglecting that which the Lord has established; and to despoil of the fellowship of glory Him who is everywhere joined to the Godhead, in the confession of the faith, in the baptism of redemption, in the operation of powers, in the indwelling of the saints, in the graces conferred upon the obedient? For there is no gift at all arriving to the creature without the Holy Spirit; since not

even a bare word in defenses on behalf of Christ is possible for those not assisted by the Spirit, as we have learned in the Gospels from our Lord and Savior. ^A Since I know not whether any partaker of the Holy Spirit would agree to disregard all these things, and, forgetting the communion which he has in all things, to tear him away from the Father and the Son. In what order, therefore, shall we place him? Among the creatures? But all creation is in bondage; the Spirit, however, makes free: "For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." And although there are many things which I could recount here, which make it unfitting to number the Holy Spirit among created things, I shall for now refrain from speaking of these. For if I were to begin, in accordance with the dignity of the argument, to bring forward defenses for those things which support us, and to dissolve the objections raised by our adversaries, there would be need of many words, and we would exhaust our readers with the prolixity of the volume. Therefore, having reserved that for a separate treatise, let us stick to the matters at hand. ^B

Let us consider, then, each point one by one. By nature, as the Father is good and the Son is good, so is the Spirit good. But the creature, by the choice of that which is good, is a partaker of goodness. He knows the depths of God: but the creature receives the revelation of the mysteries through the Spirit. He gives life with God, who gives life to all things, and with the Son, who gives life. "For he who raised Christ from the dead," he says, "will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you"; and again: "My sheep hear my voice, and I give eternal life to them." But the Spirit also gives life, he says. And again: "The Spirit, he says, is life because of righteousness." And the Lord bears witness that it is the Spirit who gives life: "The flesh profits nothing." How, therefore, removing the Spirit from the power of giving life, shall we join him to a nature which itself stands in need of life? Who is so contentious, who is so bereft of the heavenly gift, and having no taste of the good words of God, who is so void of eternal hope, as to reckon the Spirit with the creature, having removed him from the Godhead? ^C

"In us," they say, "the Spirit is like a gift from God." But a gift is by no means honored with the same honors as he who gave it. The Spirit is indeed a gift of God, but it is a gift of life. "For the law of the Spirit of life," he says, "hath made us free." And it is a gift of power: "For you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." Is he therefore to be despised for this reason? Or did God not also give the Son to men? "He who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" And elsewhere: "That we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God," speaking of the mystery of the incarnation. ^D Therefore, how do those who say these things not surpass the ungrateful and foolish spirit of the Jews, who—

PANOPLIA DOGMATICA. TIT. XII.

turn [it] around into an occasion for blasphemy? For they accuse the Spirit, [because] He gives us boldness to call God our Father. For God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father" ^A, that His voice might become the own voice of those who have received Him.

That the Scripture uses the syllable "in" instead of "with," whereby it is also proved that "in" carries the same value as "with." Chapter 25.

How then, they say, does the Scripture nowhere hand down that the Spirit is glorified with the Father and the Son, but cautiously avoids saying "with the Spirit," and everywhere prefers to glorify "in Him," as if it judged this to be more proper? But I would not myself say that the syllable "in" represents a less honorable sense, but rather, if it is soundly understood, that it raises the mind to the greatest height, since we have observed that this is frequently used for "with." Such ^B is that type, "I will enter into Thy house in [with] burnt offerings" [Psal. LXV, 13]: that is, with burnt offerings. And, "He brought them forth in [with] silver and gold" [Psal. CIV, 37], that is, with silver and gold; and that [word], "Thou shalt not go forth in [with] our powers" [Psal. XLII, 10], that is, with our powers, and ten thousand such things.

But, generally, I would gladly learn from this new wisdom what kind of doxology the Apostle completed by means of the expression "in," according to the pattern which these [men] now cite as if from Scripture. For I have nowhere found it said, "To Thee the Father [be] honor and glory through Thy only-begotten Son in the Holy Spirit"—a formula which to these [men] is now more habitual than, so to speak, breathing itself. For while it is possible to find each of these [components] separately, they are nowhere ^C able to show them joined together in this construction. So if they are sticklers for the written documents, let them show whence they say these things; but if they grant [the usage of] custom, let them not exclude us from it.

For we, perceiving both expressions in the usage of the faithful, make use of both; believing that glory is paid to the Spirit equally through either, but that the mouths of those who corrupt the truth are stopped more by the preposition in question—which, having a sense in the Scriptures similar [to "with"], cannot so easily be attacked ^D by adversaries (it is, moreover, that very one which is now contradicted by them), inasmuch as it is taken in place of the conjunction "and." For it is the same thing to say "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy," and "Paul with Timothy and Silvanus." For the connection of the names is preserved similarly by either expression. If, therefore, [when] the Lord has said "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," I myself should say "the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit," shall I have said something else as regards the force of the meaning? Moreover, that names are connected by the conjunction "and" can be proven by many testimonies. For "the grace," he says, "of the Lord" [I Thess. 1, 1].

^A For he says, "of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit" [II Cor. xiii, 13]; and again: "I beseech you through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit" [Rom. xv, 30]. If, therefore, instead of the "and," we should wish to use "with," what different thing shall we have done? I for one do not see, unless someone, because of cold grammatical rules, prefers the conjunction as copulative and productive of a greater union, and rejects the preposition as if it did not possess equal force. But if an account of these matters were demanded of us, there would perhaps be no need for many words in our response. But now they are not disputing about syllables, nor about the sound of one word or another, but about realities that differ from one another with the greatest distinction in power and truth. For which reason, while the use of syllables is indifferent, these men endeavor to admit the ones, but to banish the others from the Church. I, however, although the utility of the preposition is evident immediately upon the first listening, shall nevertheless also provide the account according to which our fathers did not use the practice of it idly. For besides the fact that it has the same force as "and," for the refuting of the malice of Sabellius, it declares the property of the hypostases in a way similar to that conjunction, as: "I and the Father will come" [John xiv, 23]; and: "I and the Father are one" [John x, 30]; furthermore, it has an ^B excellent testimony of eternal communion and perpetual conjunction. For he who said that the Son is with the Father expressed at once both the property of the hypostases and the inseparable consortium. This is something that can be seen even in human affairs, in which both the conjunction declares a common operation and the preposition "with" also signifies communion in a certain manner. Of this kind is: "Paul and Timothy sailed into Macedonia" [Acts xvi, 11], and "Tychicus and Onesimus were sent to the Colossians." From these, we have learned that they did the same thing. But if we hear that they "sailed together" and were "sent together," we are further taught that they completed the action together with one another. Thus, while destroying the error of Sabellius as no other word does equally, it also adds to those [errors] certain others who are demented with an impietas of a directly opposite kind. I speak of those who, by temporal intervals, separate the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Son.

^C Moreover, it differs from the syllable "in" in this most especially, that the preposition "with" presents the mutual conjunction of those who are acting commonly, such as those sailing together, or living together, or performing anything else in common; but the preposition "in" declares the relationship to that in which they are operating. For when we hear "they sail in" or "they inhabit," we immediately think of the boat or the house. Therefore, according to common usage, such is the difference between these syllables, and a greater one could be found by the diligent. For I have no leisure to investigate the theory of syllables. Since, therefore, the "with" has been shown to render the meaning of the conjunction most clearly, let it be covenanted ^D among you, if you please, and cease from the...

fierce and undeclared war against it. Nevertheless, since the voice is so expressive, if it is pleasing in doxologies in the Gospels, as we have learned at the baptism, "the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit"—and let it be so, no one will contradict it. Upon these terms, if it pleases, let us agree. But they would rather give up their tongues than accept this utterance. This, therefore, is what stirs up against us a most bitter and irreconcilable war. "In the Holy Spirit," they say, "glory is to be given to God, but not also to the Spirit"; and they cling most vehemently to this utterance as if it were demeaning to the Spirit. Concerning which it will not be useless to speak at greater length, upon hearing which, I would wonder if they do not repudiate it as a traitress and a deserter to the glory of the Spirit. ^A

BY THE SAME. That in as many ways as "in" is spoken, in just as many ways is it understood concerning the Spirit. Chap. 25.

In as many ways as "in" is spoken, we find it serving the concepts concerning the Spirit. For form is said to be in matter, and potentiality in that which is capable of it, and habit in that which is disposed according to it, and many things of this kind. Therefore, insofar as the Holy Spirit is the perfecting agent of rational beings, completing their summit, it holds the definition of "form." For he who no longer lives according to the flesh, but is led by the Spirit of God, and is named a son of God, and has become conformed to the image of the Son of God, is called "spiritual." ^B And as the faculty of sight is in a sound eye, so the operation of the Spirit is in a purified soul. Wherefore Paul also prays for the Ephesians that their eyes may be enlightened in the Spirit of wisdom. And as art is in him who has acquired it, so is the grace of the Spirit in him who has received it, always indeed present, but not always operating. For art is in potentiality in the craftsman; but it is in act when he operates according to it. Thus also the Spirit is always present with the worthy, but operates according to the need, whether in prophecies, ^C or in healings, or in other certain operations of powers. Furthermore, as in bodies there is health, or warmth, or in general, easily moved dispositions; so also in the soul the Spirit is often present, but in those who, because of the instability of their mind, easily thrust away the grace they have received, it does not remain—such as was Saul, and the seventy elders of the sons of Israel, except for Eldad and Modad (for only in them of all the rest does the Spirit appear to have remained), and in general, if anyone else is similar to these in the purpose of their mind. And as the word is in the soul, sometimes as the heart-felt

^A thought, and sometimes as that which is uttered by the tongue, so it is with the Holy Spirit: at one time when He bears witness with our spirit, and when He cries in our hearts, "Abba, Father"; at another, when He speaks on our behalf, according to what is said: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."

And now, the Spirit is also understood as a whole in its parts, according to the distribution of gifts. For we are all members of one another, but having different gifts according to the grace of God given to us. For this reason, "The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." Yet all together fill up the body of Christ in the unity of the Spirit, and render to one another the necessary utility from these gifts. For God has set the members in the body, each one of them as He willed. Yet the members have the same care for one another, according to the spiritual communion of mutual affection inherent in them. For this reason, "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it." And just as parts are in a whole, so we are individuals in the Spirit, in that we were all baptized in one body into one Spirit. ^B

Now, what will seem a strange thing to say is nonetheless no less true, that the Spirit is also very often called the "place" of those who are sanctified. And it will appear that not even this manner of speaking diminishes the Spirit, but rather glorifies Him. For Scripture frequently transfers bodily names to spiritual understandings for the sake of clarity. We have observed, therefore, that the Psalmist also speaks regarding God: "Be to me a God who protects me, and a fortified place to save me." And regarding the Spirit: "Behold, a place with me, and stand upon the rock"; for what else does He call the "place" but the vision in the Spirit, in which, being present, Moses was able to see God clearly appearing to him? This is the place proper to true worship. For take heed, He says, "do not offer your burnt offerings in every place, but in the place which the Lord your God will choose." What, therefore, is the spiritual burnt offering? The sacrifice of praise. In what place do we offer this, if not in the Holy Spirit? Where have we learned this? From the Lord Himself saying that "true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth." ^C Having seen this place, Jacob said, "The Lord is in this place." Thus, the Spirit is truly the place of the saints. The saint, in like manner, is a place proper to the Spirit, and offers himself to be inhabited by God, and is called His temple. For just as Paul speaks in Christ—"For we speak before God in Christ," he says—and Christ in Paul, as he himself says, "Do you seek

^A a proof of Christ who speaks in me?" so also He speaks mysteries in the Spirit, and the Spirit again speaks in him.

In created things, therefore, the Spirit is said to be present in manifold ways and manners; but concerning the Father and the Son, it is more pious to say that He coexists with them, rather than that He is present in them. For the grace flowing from Him, while He dwells in those who are worthy and exercises His operations in them, is rightly said to be present in those who are capable of receiving it. But His subsistence, which was before the ages, and His unceasing permanence, when contemplated with the Son and the Father, requires the appellations of eternal conjunction. For "to coexist" is properly and truly said of those things which are inseparably present to one another. For we say that warmth is present in heated iron, but that it coexists with the fire itself; and we say that health is present in the body, but that life coexists with the soul. So where there is a proper, connatural, and inseparable communion, the expression "coexist" is more significant, as it suggests to the intellect the thought of an inseparable conjunction; but where the grace proceeding from Him is accustomed to approach and depart, it is properly and truly said to be present, even if His grace often remains perpetual in those who have received it, on account of their perseverance in what is good.

Therefore, as often as we understand the proper dignity of the Spirit, we contemplate Him with the Father and the Son; but when we consider the grace operating in those who are His partakers, we say that the Spirit is in us. And indeed, the glorification offered by us in the Spirit does not contain a confession of His dignity, but a confession of our own weakness, while we show that we are not sufficient of ourselves to glorify, but that our sufficiency is from the Holy Spirit, in whom, being strengthened, we fulfill our thanksgiving to our God for the benefits received, according to the measure of our cleansing from wickedness—some partaking of the Spirit’s assistance more or less than others—in order to offer the sacrifices of praise to God. According to one manner, therefore, we thus piously fulfill our thanksgiving in the Spirit. Although even this is not free from pride, that someone should testify of himself and say, "The Spirit of God is in me," and, "Becoming wise through His grace, I offer glory." For this expression befits Paul: "And I think that I also have the Spirit of God," and again, "Keep the good deposit through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us," and concerning Daniel, that "the Holy Spirit of God was in him," and if anyone else is similar to them in virtue.

^D The second understanding, which itself is not to be rejected, is that just as the Father is seen in the Son, so the Son is seen in the Spirit. Therefore, worship which is in the Spirit indicates the operation of our mind as being done in the light, as you may learn from what was said to the Samaritan woman. For when she, deceived by the custom of the region, thought that worship was to be performed in a place;

our Lord, correcting her, said that it is necessary to worship in Spirit and in truth ^A, implying by "the truth" Himself. Just as, therefore, we speak of worship in the Son, as being in the image of God and the Father, so also we do in the Spirit, as in Himself manifesting the divinity of the Lord. Hence, the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son in worship. For if you are outside Him, you will by no means worship; on the other hand, if you are in Him, you will in no way separate Him from God, any more than you would separate light from the things that are visible to the eye; for it is impossible to see the image of the invisible God, except in the light of the Spirit. And for him who gazes upon the image, it is impossible to separate the light from the image. For the very thing that is the cause of seeing must, of necessity, be seen along with the things that are seen. So, appropriately and consequently, through the illumination of the Spirit we perceive ^B the splendor of the glory of God; and through the character we are raised up to Him whose character it is, and to the equal seal.

"For what reason then," they say, "since this syllable 'in' is properly suited to the Spirit, and is sufficient for us to express any understanding concerning the Spirit, have you introduced this new syllable, saying 'with the Spirit,' and not 'in the Holy Spirit,' using words that are neither necessary nor approved by the Churches?"

Of the same. Whence the syllable "with" began, and what power it has; in which are also the matters concerning the unwritten customs of the Church. Chapter 27.

That the syllable "in" does not belong exclusively to the Holy Spirit, but is common to the Father and the Son, has been said in what precedes. I believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that "in" not only detracts nothing ^C from the dignity of the Spirit, but also raises the thoughts of those who are not entirely corrupt in mind to the greatest height. It remains to discuss the syllable "with," where it began, what power it possesses, and how it is in harmony with Scripture.

Of the dogmas and proclamations kept in the Church, some we have from written teaching, while others we have received in mystery from the tradition of the Apostles, both of which have the same power for piety; and no one will contradict these; at least, no one who has even a slight acquaintance with the ordinances of the Church. For if we should undertake to reject the customs that are not written down as having little importance, we should recklessly injure the Gospel ^D in its most vital points; or rather, we should reduce the proclamation to a mere name. For instance, to mention first that which is primary and most common: who has taught in writing that those who place their hope in Christ should be signed with the sign of the cross? Or which Scripture taught us to turn toward the east for prayer?

^A The words of invocation at the manifestation of the bread of the Eucharist and of the cup of blessing, who of the saints has left them to us in writing? For we are not content with those things which the Apostle or the Gospel mentioned, but we also say other things both before and after, as having great importance for the mystery, which we received from unwritten tradition. We also bless the water of baptism and the oil of anointing, and furthermore the one who receives the baptism. From which Scriptures? Is it not from a silent and secret tradition? And what of the anointing with oil itself, what written word has taught it? And the thrice-dipping of a man, from where was it drawn? And the other things which are done in baptism, such as renouncing Satan and his angels, from what Scripture do we have them? Is it not from this unpublicized and secret doctrine, which our fathers kept in quiet and uninquiring silence, having well learned that the reverence of the mysteries is preserved by silence? ^B For since it is not even lawful for the uninitiated to behold them, how would it be reasonable for their doctrine to be heralded in writings? Or to what end did the great Moses strive, when he did not allow all things in the temple to be accessible to everyone? No, he kept the profane outside the sacred enclosures, and having allowed the first courts to the purer ones, he judged only the Levites worthy of the ministry of the divine 1; but the slaughtering and the offerings of whole burnt offerings, and the rest of the sacred rite, he allotted to the priests 2; and one out of all he admitted into the inner sanctuary 3, and not even this one always, but on one only day 4 of each year, and he even established for him a fixed hour on that day in which it was lawful to enter, so that, being struck with awe ^C due to the strangeness and unusual nature, he might behold the Holy of Holies; as he well knew through wisdom that things worn out by use and readily available by themselves are exposed to contempt, while to things which are set apart and rare, the highest admiration and study are naturally joined.

In the very same manner, the Apostles and Fathers who from the beginning prescribed the rites concerning the Church kept the reverence for the mysteries in secret and in silence. For that which is brought to the popular and casual ear is not a mystery at all. This is the reason for the unwritten tradition, so that the knowledge of the dogmas might not become neglected and held in contempt by the many due to familiarity. For a dogma is one thing, and a proclamation is another. For the dogma is kept silent, but proclamations are made public. There is also a kind of silence in the obscurity which Scripture uses, rendering the meaning of the dogmas difficult to understand, toward the benefit of those who read. ^D For this reason, we all look toward the east when we pray; but few of us know that by doing this we are seeking our ancient homeland, the paradise which God planted in Eden toward the east 5. We also stand upright when we perform prayers on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. For not only because we have risen together with Christ and ought to seek the things above,

^A in the day of the resurrection, by standing when we pray, do we remind ourselves of the grace given to us; but also because it seems in a way to be an image of the age to come. Therefore, as it is the beginning of days, it was not called "first" by Moses, but "one." For he says, "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as one that recurs frequently. Thus, "one" is the same as "eighth," signifying by itself that unique and true "eighth," which the Psalmist also mentions in certain inscriptions of the psalms, which is the state of time that shall follow this, the day that shall not end, evening-less, successor-less, that age which shall never end nor grow old. ^B Necessarily, therefore, on this day the Church teaches her fosterlings to complete their prayers standing, so that by constant reminder of that life which shall never end, we may not neglect to prepare the viaticum for that migration. Moreover, the entire period of fifty days is an admonition of the resurrection which we await in the other world. For that one and first day, multiplied seven times, completes the seven weeks of the sacred Pentecost. For beginning from the first, it ends in the same, having revolved fifty times through days similar to those in the middle. Hence, it represents eternity by its likeness, while, as in a circular motion, beginning from the same signs, it ends in the same. On which day, the rites of the Church have taught us to pray rather in an erect posture of the body, surely by an evident warning, as if transferring our mind from present things to future things. Furthermore, as often as we bend our knees and rise again, by the very act we show that because of sin we have fallen to the ground, and through the humanity of Him who created us, we have been recalled to heaven. ^C

The day would fail me if I were to go on to recount the mysteries of the Church which have been handed down without writing. I omit the rest: the very profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from what Scriptures do we have it? For if, indeed, from the tradition of baptism, according to the sequence of piety, as we are baptized, so also we are bound to believe, and we exhibit a profession similar to baptism; let them grant to us also that, according to the same consequence, we may render a glorification similar to the faith. But if they reject the manner of glorifying as not handed down in writing, let them produce for us proof from the Scriptures both of the profession of faith and of the other things we have mentioned. ^D Moreover, when there are so many things which have not been handed down in writing, and have so much importance for the mystery of piety, will they not allow us a single little phrase which has come down to us from our forefathers, which we have found remaining in the unadulterated custom of the Churches which are not perverse and corrupted, a phrase having no mean reason, nor bringing a mediocre contribution to the power of the mystery?

^A It has been said, indeed, that it makes no difference to the meaning whether you say, "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit," or say, "Glory to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Spirit." Therefore, it is neither right for anyone to reject or expunge the syllable "and" which has proceeded from the mouth of the Lord, nor is there anything to prevent one from accepting the other which is equivalent to it; and we have demonstrated in the preceding chapters how it relates to the other in terms of difference and similarity. The Apostle also confirms our argument for us, using either expression indifferently, at one time saying: *In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God*; and again: *When you are gathered, and my Spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus*; considering it makes no difference whether you use the conjunction or the preposition for the joining of the names. ^B

*By the same.* That the things which Scripture says about men, as reigning together with Christ, the adversaries do not allow to be said about the Spirit. Chapter XXIX.

Let us see, then, if we can devise any defense for our fathers regarding this usage. For those who were the authors of our speaking in this way are even more liable to the charges than we are. Paul, therefore, writing to the Colossians, says: *And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision, He has made alive together with Christ.* Does God, then, have granted to the whole people and the Church the life that is with Christ, but for the Holy Spirit there is no life with Christ? But if it is impious even to conceive this in one's mind, would it not be pious, just as nature has it, to render the confession in a linked manner as well? ^C Furthermore, is it not the height of stupor to confess that the saints are with Christ (since indeed Paul, being away from the body, is present with the Lord, and when he has departed, he is already with Christ), but to the Spirit, as far as they are concerned, to not even attribute this, so that He is at least equally with Christ as men are? Nay, Paul even calls himself a co-worker of God in the administration of the Gospel; but if we call the Holy Spirit, through whom the Gospel bears fruit in every creature under heaven, a co-worker, will they bring a charge of impiety against us for this as well? And as it seems, ^D the life of those who have hoped in the Lord is hidden with Christ in God; and when Christ appears, who is our life, then they also will appear with Him in glory; but the Spirit of life Himself, who has freed us from the law of sin, is in no way with Christ, neither in the life that is hidden and concealed with Him, nor in the manifestation of the glory which we expect to be revealed in the saints? We are heirs of God, and co-heirs of Christ; but is the Spirit disinherited and devoid of the communion of God and of His Christ? And the Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit that we are children of God; but we toward the Spirit, not even of that fellowship which...

^A we have learned is the testimony of communion with God, do we make a return? And this is the height of madness: we hope, through faith in Christ, that we shall be raised up in the Spirit with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places, when He shall transform the body of our humiliation from an animal to a spiritual one; yet to the Spirit, do we not grant a seat, or glory, or anything else of those things which we have from Him? But do we, regarding those things of which we have believed ourselves worthy—based upon the truthful gift of Him who promised—concede none of these to the Holy Spirit, as if His dignity were surpassed? For it is granted to you, according to your merit, to be always with the Lord, and you await that, being caught up in the clouds to meet Him in the air, you will always be with the Lord; but the Spirit, do you now deny to be with Christ? For you treat as an exile him who counts and ranks Him with the Father and the Son, as one who has committed an intolerable impiety.

^B I am ashamed to add what follows, that you indeed expect to be glorified with Christ (since we suffer together that we may also be glorified together), yet you do not glorify with Christ the Spirit of holiness, as if He were not even worthy to receive equal honor with yourself. And you indeed hope to reign with Him, but you insult the Spirit of grace, assigning to Him the place of a slave and servant. And I say this not just to show how much honor is owed to the Spirit in glorification, but to expose the madness of those who do not grant Him even this much, but recoil from the communion of the Spirit in glory with the Father and the Son as if it were an impy act. Who can recount these things without groaning? Is it not manifest, so that even a child can understand, that the things which are now happening are the prelude to that defection of faith which the Lord threatened? Those things which it was not lawful to contradict have become ambiguous. We believe in the Spirit, and we contradict our own ^C professions. We are baptized, and we fight against it again. As the Author of life we call upon Him, and as a fellow creature we despise Him. We have received the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and we hold Him in contempt as one part of the creation. And these men, not knowing what they ought to pray for, if they are led to speak even something magnificent about the Spirit—as if they were attaining to the measure of His dignity—suppress what in their words exceeds that measure. It behooved them to lament their own weakness, since we are not adequate to give thanks in words for the benefits with which we are actually endowed. For it surpasses all intellect and refutes the nature of speech, since it does not equal even the smallest part of that dignity, according to the words of the book which is inscribed Wisdom: «Exalt Him, for He says, as much as you can: for He surpasses even still; and exalting Him, multiply. Do not weary yourselves: for you shall not attain.» Truly, the accounts to be rendered for such speeches are terrible for you—you who have heard from the God who cannot lie that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

But against what they say regarding the glorification—

we say this: if nothing else existed without Scripture, then let not this be accepted; but since most of the mysteries are administered to us without Scripture, we will accept this along with many other things. And I believe it to be apostolic to adhere to unwritten traditions as well. For he says, "I praise you ^A because you remember me in everything, and just as I delivered to you, you hold fast the traditions." And that word: "Hold fast the traditions which you have received, whether by word or by epistle"; one of which is this one about which we are now speaking, which those who ordained it from the beginning, having delivered it to those who followed, kept it flourishing in the Churches by long custom as usage always advanced concurrently with time. If, therefore, as if in a court of law, we were to produce for you a multitude of witnesses, lacking proof by documents, would we not obtain from you an acquitting verdict? I myself think so: "For in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." And if we should also clearly show you the great length of time that is on our side, would we not seem to you to be saying plausible things, that this lawsuit cannot justly be brought against us? For ancient dogmas are, in a certain way, venerable, having—by reason of their antiquity, like a kind of gray hair—a certain reverence. I shall therefore enumerate to you the protectors of the expression (and the time, by the thing passed over in silence, is also completely taken into the reckoning).

The same: An enumeration of the illustrious men in the Church who used in their own writings the phrase "with." Chapter 29.

That Irenaeus, and Clement the Roman, and Dionysius the Roman, and Dionysius the Alexandrian—which is even a wondrous thing to hear—in his second epistle to his namesake, ^D Concerning accusation and defense, thus brought his discourse to a close. And I shall transcribe for you the very words of the man. "Concurrently with all these," he says, "we also, and indeed from the

^A pattern and rule received from the presbyters before us, do together unite with them in thanksgiving; and now, also, in writing to you, we cease. To God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and power for ever and ever, amen."

And no one could say that these things have been altered or changed; for he would not have asserted that he had received the pattern and rule, if he had said it "in the Spirit," for this expression is used frequently. But the other point was what required defense. He who, in the middle of his writing, speaks thus against the Sabellians: "If, because there are three subsistences, they say that they are divided, they are three, even if they do not wish it—or let them entirely abolish the divine Trinity!" And again: ^B "For this reason, after the Monad, the Trinity is most divine."

But Clement, too, in a more archaic way, says: "God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit." And Irenæus, who was close to the times of the apostles, let us hear how he makes mention of the Spirit in his discourse against the heresies. "Those who are unrestrained," he says, "and are carried away into their own desires, having no craving for the divine Spirit, the Apostle rightly calls carnal." And in other places the same man says: "In order that we, not becoming devoid of the divine Spirit, may not fall short of the kingdom of heaven, the Apostle exclaims that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven."

But if Eusebius of Palestine also seems to anyone trustworthy on account of his vast experience, in whom we place our faith, we show the same expressions from him in his perplexities concerning the marriage customs of the ancients. For he speaks thus, urging himself on to the discussion: "Having called upon the holy God of the prophets as the light-giver through our Lord Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit."

^C Now we also found Origen, in many of his discourses on the Psalms, ascribing glory to God with the Holy Spirit; a man who did not at all hold sound opinions concerning the Spirit in every respect. Nevertheless, in many places he too, being overawed by the strength of custom, uttered pious expressions concerning the Spirit. For, in the sixth book, if I am not mistaken, of his Exegesis of the Gospel according to John, he clearly declared Him to be adorable, writing thus word for word: "Since the washing of water signifies the purification of the soul washed clean from all the filth of wickedness, nevertheless it also possesses in itself, for him who surrenders himself to the divinity of the adorable Trinity, through the power of the invocations, the beginning and source of gifts." ^D And again, in the commentaries in which he explains the Epistle to the Romans: "The holy powers," he says, "are capable of receiving the divinity of the Only-begotten and of the Holy Spirit." Thus, I believe, the power of tradition has often driven men even to contradict their own dogmas. And the historian Africanus was not passed over by such a form of glorification; for it is established in the fifth book

of his ^A *Epitome of the Times*, and he himself says: "For we, knowing the measure of those words and not ignorant of the grace of faith, give thanks to the Father, who for us, His creatures, has provided the Savior of all and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and majesty with the Holy Spirit forever." Now, other things may perhaps be disbelieved, or even when transcribed may be thought to possess a difficult kind of corruption, the difference residing in a single syllable; but that which we have cited by means of a longer discourse escapes craft, and has its testimony readily available from the books themselves. Moreover, we now add this, which otherwise might perhaps be too lowly to be brought forth, but is very useful for someone accused of novelty because of the antiquity of the time. It seemed good to our fathers not to receive the grace of the evening light in silence, but to give thanks as soon as it appeared. But who the author of those words, which are spoken during the thanksgiving for the lamp, may have been, we cannot say. The people, however, utter the ancient voice, and never have those who say, "We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God," been thought to commit impiety. And if anyone also knows the hymn of Athenogenes, which he left behind for his disciples as a kind of amulet, already hastening to his consummation by fire, he also knows the opinion of the martyrs concerning the Spirit. And these things are sufficient ^B so far.

Where shall we place Gregory the Great and his utterances? Shall we not place him with the apostles and prophets? A man who walked in the same Spirit as they, who adhered to the footsteps of the saints throughout his whole life, and who maintained the rigor of the evangelical manner of life throughout his entire existence. I for my part affirm this: we would do injury to the truth if we did not number that soul among those who are joined to God, who shone as a brilliant and great lamp in the Church of God, who through the help of the Spirit had terrible power against demons; and he had received such grace of speech for the obedience of faith among the nations that, having received only seventeen Christians, he brought the whole people, both urban and rural, to God through this recognition. He even turned aside the currents of rivers, ^C having commanded them in the great name of Christ, and he dried up a marsh that was providing a cause of war for avaricious brothers. And his predictions concerning future things are such that he is in no way inferior to the other prophets. But it would be altogether a long task to recount the miracles of the man, who, on account of the excellence of the gifts which the Spirit worked in him in all power and signs and wonders, was invoked as a second Moses by the very enemies of the truth ^D. Thus, in every word and deed of those things accomplished through grace, a sort of light shone forth from him, a token of the heavenly power which followed him from [the]

^A the unseen. To the locals, the wonder of this still remains great even now, and the memory is fresh and ever-new, established in the Churches, never to be dimmed by time. Thus, they did not add to the Church any deed, or word, or mystical rite beyond what he left behind. For this reason, many of the things performed among them appear to be lacking, on account of the antiquity of the institution. For those who succeeded him in the administration of the Churches did not choose to accept or count as an addition any of the things invented after him. Therefore, one of the ordinances of Gregory is that very manner of glorification which is now being contradicted, preserved in the Church on the basis of his tradition. ^B And it would not be much trouble for one who has undertaken but a short journey to receive certainty regarding these matters. That this was the faith of our own Firmilian is testified to by the books which he left behind. Furthermore, those who lived with the admirable Meletius recount that he was of the same opinion. But what need is there to mention ancient things? Even now in the East, is this not the one thing by which those who think piously are identified, discerning "their own" from "aliens" as if by a certain sign of this utterance? As I myself heard from a certain man from Mesopotamia, a person skilled in the language and incorrupt in his opinion: it is not even possible for them to speak otherwise in their native tongue, even if they wish to, but it is necessary for them, according to the peculiarity of the language of that region, to offer the glorification by the syllable "and," or rather by words which have the same force as it. We Cappadocians also speak thus according to the custom of our region, the Spirit having provided for the utility of expressions even then in the division of languages. And what of the whole West, from Illyricum almost to the ends of our inhabited world? Does it not uphold this utterance? ^C How then am I an innovator and a fabricator of newer terms, when I present as the leaders and patrons of this utterance entire nations and cities, and a custom older than all human memory, and men who were pillars of the Church, distinguished in all knowledge and the power of the Spirit?

Of the same, from the Epistle to Eustathius the Armenian.

^D It is necessary to curse those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and those who do not confess that He is holy by nature, as the Father is holy by nature and the Son is holy by nature, but who alienate Him from the divine and blessed nature. But the indicator of one who thinks rightly is this: not to separate Him from the Father and the Son. For we ought to be baptized as we were instituted, and to believe as we are baptized, and to glorify as we have believed: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and to abstain from the communion of those who call Him a creature, as those who are openly blaspheming, once that fact is agreed upon. For the note is necessary on account of the slanderers: that we do not call the Holy Spirit "unbegotten"—for we know one "unbegotten" and one principle of all things, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—nor "begotten." For we have been taught in the institution of the faith of the Only-Begotten, but the Spirit of the

truth proceeds from the Father; we confess that He is from God, but not by way of creation. ^A It is also necessary to anathematize those who call the Holy Spirit "ministerial," as if by this term they were dragging Him down into the order of created things. For Scripture has delivered to us that ministering spirits are created, saying that they are all "ministering spirits sent forth for service." And for the sake of those who confound everything and do not preserve the doctrine in the Gospels, it is necessary to explain this too: that we must also flee from those who alter the sequence that the Lord has handed down to us, as they are clearly opposing piety, and setting the Son before the Father, and setting the Holy Spirit before the Son. For we must preserve, firm and inviolate, the sequence which we received from the very voice of the Lord, who said: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." ^B

Of the same, from the third discourse against Eunomius.

Since two things are spoken of—deity and creation, mastership and slavery, the power that sanctifies and that which is sanctified, that which possesses virtue by nature and that which acquires it by choice—in which of these categories shall we place the Spirit? Among those who are sanctified? But He Himself is sanctification. Or among those who have attained virtue through noble deeds? But He is good by nature. Or among those who minister? But there are other ministering spirits who are "sent forth for service." Therefore, it is not right for us to call Him a fellow-servant by nature, nor to number Him with created things, He who is numbered together in the divine and blessed Trinity. ^C For principalities and powers, and all such creation, have their sanctification from attentiveness and diligence, and cannot rightly be called holy by nature. For they desire the good and partake of the measure of holiness according to the proportion of their love toward God. And just as iron, placed in the midst of fire, does not cease to be iron, but being made incandescent by the most intense communion with the fire, and receiving into itself the whole nature of the fire, it passes over into the fire in both color and efficacy, so also the holy powers, through the communion they have with Him who is holy by nature, possess a kind of holiness that has already pervaded their whole substance and grown together with it. ^D They differ, however, from the Holy Spirit in this, that for Him holiness is nature, whereas for them it exists by participation. For those in whom the good is something added and bestowed from elsewhere are of a mutable nature. For Lucifer, who rises in the morning, would not have fallen, nor would he have been crushed upon the earth, had he not by nature been capable of receiving a worse state. How then is it pious to...

rank [the Spirit] among creatures, as if He were separated from creatures by some interval? For the creature is formed to possess holiness as a reward for its progress and its pleasing conduct toward God, utilizing its free will and being able to incline in either direction, toward the choice of good or evil; but the Holy Spirit is the fountain of holiness. And just as the Father is holy by nature, and the Son is holy by nature, so the Spirit of truth is also holy by nature; wherefore He has been vouchsafed the appellation of "holy," ^A and that in a peculiar and proper sense.

If, then, holiness is His nature, just as it is for the Father and the Son, how is He of a third and alien nature? For this reason, I believe, it is written even in Isaiah that the Seraphim cry out "Holy" a third time, because holiness by nature is perceived in the three hypostases. Nor is this name of holiness alone common to Him with the Father and the Son, but the very appellation of "spirit" as well. For God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. And the prophet says: "Christ the Lord is the spirit before our face," of whom we said: "In the shadow of His wings we shall live." And the Apostle transfers the appellation of spirit to the Lord when he says: "Now the Lord is the spirit." ^B From these things it is manifest to anyone that the communion of names demonstrates, not an alienation of nature, but a conjunction with the Father and the Son. God is also called good, and is so; the Holy Spirit is also good, possessing goodness not as something adventitious, but as innate to Him by nature. Otherwise, it would be most absurd of all if someone were to say that He who is holy by nature does not possess goodness by nature, but rather as something subsequent and coming upon Him from without. Furthermore, when the Lord said: “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete,” He shows that He Himself is our Paraclete. Wherefore the appellation of Paraclete also contributes not a little to the demonstration of the ^C majesty of the Holy Spirit.

And names such as these are indicative of the majesty of His nature; but what of the operations of the Holy Spirit? “By the word of the Lord,” he says, “the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their power.” As, therefore, God the Word is the creator of the heavens, so the Holy Spirit imparts stable and firm virtue to the heavenly powers. And again Job: “The Spirit of the Lord, which made me,” speaking, I believe, not of creation, but of the perfection of human virtue. Isaiah also, speaking from the person of the Lord—that is, according to His humanity—says: “The Lord has sent Me, and His Spirit.” And again the Psalm, declaring that the power of the Spirit has permeated ^D all things: “Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, and whither shall I flee from Thy face?”

DOGMATIC PANOPLY — TIT. XII.

^A ...to us, of what kind and how great they are? As the Lord himself gave to those who received him the power to become children of God, ^B so also the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of adoption. And just as our Lord is the true teacher, according to that which was said: "But be not you called teacher on the earth; for one is your master, even Christ"; so also the Holy Spirit instructing all who have believed into the name of the Lord has been testified to by the Lord himself, who said: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send, he will teach you all things." And as the Father is said to distribute the operations to those who are worthy of receiving the operations, and the Son to distribute the ministrations in the dignities of the ministry; so also the Holy Spirit is testified to distribute the gifts to those who are worthy of the reception of the gifts. For there are "diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who works all things in all." Do you see how also in this case the operation of the Holy Spirit is joined to the operation of the Father and the Son? Then, also from that which follows, the divinity of the nature of the Holy Spirit is more fully declared. For what does it say? "But all these things works one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one privately as he wills." He ascribes nothing else to him but power joined to authority and lordship. Wherefore in the New Testament the prophets have cried out: "Thus says the Holy Spirit." Whence, however, does the examination of the depths of God belong to the Spirit? "As," he says, "no one of men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him; so also the things of God no one has known, except the Spirit of God." For just as no one who is alien or a stranger can look into the internal thoughts of the soul, so evidently, if the Spirit has something in common with God regarding the hidden things, since He is neither alien nor a stranger to Him, He is able to search out the depths of the judgments of God. Furthermore, life is also provided to us from God through Christ in the Holy Spirit. For God makes alive, as Paul says: "I charge you before God who makes all things alive." Christ bestows life: "My sheep," he says, "hear my voice, and I give to them eternal life." We are made alive also through the Spirit, as Paul says: "He who raised Christ from the dead will also make alive your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you."

^D But this man, daring everything, and not fearing the danger which hangs over those who dare to utter any blasphemous word against the Holy Spirit, declares Him to be devoid of divinity, writing thus concerning the Spirit:

^A EUN. Third in order and nature, produced by the command of the Father and the operation of the Son, honored in the third rank, as being the first and greatest of all things, and the only such handiwork of the Only-Begotten, falling short of divinity and the power of creating.

BAS. He who says this seems not even to believe that the divinity dwells within us, although John says concerning God: In this we know that He is in us, by the Spirit which He has given us; and the Apostle: Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you? And again: In whom all the building being framed together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. If, therefore, God is said to dwell in us through the Spirit, is it not manifest impiety to call the Spirit Himself devoid of divinity? And if we call those who are perfect in virtue gods, and perfection is through the Spirit, how is He who makes others gods Himself destitute of divinity? Nor would it be pious to say that, as in the case of men, so also in the case of the Spirit, the divinity is honored as having been acquired by participation, and does not belong to Him by nature. For he who is made a god by grace is of a mutable nature, which sometimes falls away from goodness through negligence. But this openly contradicts the tradition of saving baptism. Go, He says, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For baptism is the seal of faith, and faith is assent to the divinity. For it is necessary to believe first, and then to be sealed by baptism. Our baptism, however, is according to the tradition of the Lord, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; to no creature, nor to any servant, joined ^B to the Father and the Son, since the divinity is completed in the Trinity. For whatever is outside these is all a fellow-servant, even if some things are preferred to others on account of the excellence of their dignities.

And do not again object to me those clever words:

EUN. If He is not a creature, then He is either a product of generation or ungenerated. But God alone is without beginning and ungenerated. Yet He is not a product of generation. It remains, therefore, that He be named a creature and a product of making.

BAS. But I, if I judged that all things could be comprehended by our knowledge, should perhaps be ashamed to confess my ignorance. But now, numberless things are hidden from us, not only of those which are stored up for us in the age to come, nor of those which are now in the heavens, but not even the things that exist within our own body do we comprehend clearly and evidently. For example, regarding sight: whether, while we receive the images of visible things, we in that way perceive the objects; and how the image of the greatest mountains, and of the immense earth, and of the infinite sea, and of the heaven itself is contained within the small measure of our pupil; or whether, when we emit something from ourselves, and it approaches the visible things, we thus have perception of them; and what this is and how much it is, such that it is sufficient to cover the earth and the sea, and

^A to penetrate the space between earth and heaven, nay even to reach to heaven itself, and to move with such speed that in an equal amount of time the surrounding body and the stars which are in heaven are discerned. And what need is there to speak of other things? What is more, who can say with certainty whether the soul is naturally disposed to create or generate the very motions of the mind? What wonder is it, then, if we also confess our ignorance regarding the Holy Spirit without shame, and yet render the glorification which is attributed to Him by invincible testimony? For those things which are handed down through the Scriptures sufficiently demonstrate to us that He is above the creation, since it is impossible that that which sanctifies and those things which are sanctified, that which teaches and those things which are taught, that which reveals and those things which are in need of revelation, should be of the same nature. But no one is so utterly deranged as to dare to call anyone "unbegotten" except the God of all, nor indeed the Son, because there is one Only-begotten. How, then, must one call Him? The Holy Spirit, and Spirit of God, and Spirit of truth, sent by God, supplied through the Son: not a servant, but holy, good, sovereign, a life-giving Spirit, a Spirit of adoption, knowing all the things of God. ^B Thus, indeed, the doctrine of the unity will be preserved in the Trinity, if we confess one Father, and one Son, and one Holy Spirit.

They bring forward arguments to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has been called a creature, one indeed from the prophet saying: *He who strengthens the thunder and creates spirit* ^C; and another from the Gospel: *All things were made through Him*. But we are persuaded that the prophetic saying does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but to this common breath, namely the spirit of the air. And this is evident from the following. For He did not say, "He who has created spirit," but, *He who creates spirit*. For just as thunder, when it sounds, is not something that was created once and for all in a corporeal substance, but is naturally disposed to be produced and dissolved according to the will of God for the terror of men, so also the spirit now comes to be, flowing like a current of air; and then again it ceases when that which was previously moving comes to rest, according to the will of Him who governs all things for the salvation and order of all, so that through the whole of creation, through thunders and winds and the rest of the workmanship, the Creator may be announced. Wherefore, after saying, *He who strengthens the thunder and creates spirit*, he says: *And announcing to men his Christ*. ^D For just as the heavens declare the glory of God to those who are able to estimate from them the art of the Creator, so too do the crashing of thunder and the movements of spirits proclaim their Creator. Perhaps this might also be a prophecy tending toward the incarnation of the Lord; since the voice which occurred from heaven seemed to those who heard it to be thunder, which God and Father emitted, in order that through it He might announce Christ to men. The spirits, however, which have been stirred up, and the sea which is troubled...

or having been calmed at the command of the Lord, these also clearly announced His Christ to men. But the text, "All things were made by Him," in no way shows us that the Holy Spirit is a creature, as if the Spirit were enumerated together with all things. For if the Holy Spirit is one and alone, how can He who is of a certain singular nature be contained together with all things? And let no one think it is an abrogation of His hypostasis to deny that the Spirit is a creature. For it is the part of a pious mind to fear to speak of the Holy Spirit those things which are passed over in silence in the holy Scriptures, and to believe that the knowledge and accurate comprehension of Him is reserved for us in the future age, when, having passed through the time in which truth is seen through a mirror and in a riddle, we shall have obtained that contemplation which is face to face. ^B

Item on the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatomachi, from the oration on the Holy Spirit by St. Gregory the Theologian.

If there was a time when the Father was not, there was also a time when the Son was not. If there was a time when the Son was not, there was also a time when the Holy Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were also. If you cast down the One, I dare to say, do not place even the Two above. For what benefit is there in an imperfect Deity? Or rather, what deity is there, if it is imperfect? But how will it be perfect, in which something is lacking for perfection? For it is lacking if it lacks holiness. Furthermore, how can it possess this if it does not have the Spirit? For if there is some other holiness besides Him, let someone say what that is to be understood as; or, if it is indeed the same, what reason can be offered why it was not there from the beginning? As if it were better for God to have existed at some time imperfect, and void of the Spirit. If He was not from the beginning, He is of my class and order, even if He precedes me by some small amount. For we are separated from God by an interval of time. Furthermore, if He is of the same class as me, in what way does He make me a god? Or by what pact does He unite me to the Deity? ^C

From the same oration.

The Sadducees completely thought that the Holy Spirit did not exist, just as they did not believe in angels, nor in the resurrection; I do not know what happened to them, that they held as nothing so many and such great testimonies about Him in the Old Testament. But those among the pagans who excelled more in the praise of theology, and who approached nearer to us, conceived of Him through a certain image, though not indeed by judgment, even if they disagreed in the name, calling Him by such names as the Mind of the Universe, and the External Mind, and others of that kind. But those of our own wise men, some have supposed Him to be an energy, others a creature, others God, and others did not know which of these [He was], out of reverence for the Scripture, as they say, because it has not clearly declared anything else. And because of this, they neither worship nor dishonor Him, being somehow disposed toward Him in a medial way, or rather very miserably. And of those who have supposed Him to be God, some [have gone] as far as... ^D

been pious and orthodox in mind; others have not feared to profess piety even with their lips. I have heard of certain others, more clever, who measure the divinity: they acknowledge, just as we do, that three [hypostases] are understood, but they divide them so much from one another that they establish one of them as infinite in both essence and power, the second as infinite in power but not in essence, and the last as circumscribed in both. In another way, they thus imitate those who speak of a Creator, a co-worker, and a minister, and think that the order and rank in the names is also the order of the things themselves.

^B We, however, have no argument with those who suppose that He does not even exist, nor with those who speak nonsense among the Greeks. For let us not be anointed with the oil of sinners for the sake of an argument. But with the others, we shall argue in this way: the Holy Spirit must be placed either among those things that possess subsistence by themselves, or among those things that are considered as being in another—of which those skilled in these matters call the one substance, and the other an accident. If, then, it is an accident, this would be the energy of God. For what else, or of what [would it be]? For this is in some way more consistent, and escapes composition. And if it is an energy, clearly it will be acted upon and will not act, and at the same moment that it has been acted upon, it will cease. For such is the nature of energy. How, therefore, does He act, and speak these things, and distinguish, and feel sorrow, and become provoked, and all that is clearly of one who is moved, but not of the movement itself? But if it is a substance, it will be considered either as an object around the substance—that is, a creature—or as God. For some medium between these—either that which shares in neither, or that which is composite and fabricated from both—not even those who construct goat-stags could conceive. But if it is a creature, how do we believe *into* Him, or are we made perfect *in* Him? For it is not the same thing to believe *into* something and to believe *concerning* it. For the former belongs to divinity, the latter to any object whatsoever. If, however, He is God, then He is not a creature, nor a product, nor a fellow-servant, nor at all any of the lowly names.

^C Let your tongue leap forth for argument; let the slings be sent, let the syllogisms be woven. "Either it is entirely unbegotten or begotten." And if it were unbegotten, there would be two without beginning. But if it is begotten, you subdivide again: either it is from the Father or from the Son. And if from the Father, then there are two Sons and brothers. Construct for me, if you wish, even twins, or one elder and one younger; since you are so much immersed in corporeal things. But if [it is] from the Son, then, you say, a grandson God has appeared to us. What could be more absurd than this? These things are [for] men wise at doing evil, but unwilling to write good things. I, for my part, if I saw that this division were necessary, would have accepted the facts, not fearing the names. For it is not because—according to a certain higher relation—the Son is the Son, that we, being unable to signify this except in this way, are compelled by necessity to use the inferior designations and to transfer the relationships of our own kin onto the

^A divine. Perhaps you might even suppose that God is male, according to this argument, because He is called God and Father? And that the Godhead is female, as far as the gender of the word permits? And finally, the Spirit, that it is neuter, because it begets nothing? But if, according to ancient fables and trifles, you were to trifle in this way also, by saying that God, through His own will, came together with Himself to beget the Son, you will have introduced to us some hermaphrodite God of Marcion and Valentinus, who invented new aeons.

Furthermore, since we do not accept your first division, ^B which assumes that there is nothing intermediate between the unbegotten and the begotten, your "brothers" and "nephews" will immediately disappear along with your splendid division, inasmuch as, with the first bond of your disputation’s beginning having been broken, they too are at once loosened, dissolved, and have withdrawn themselves from the doctrine of the Divinity. For where, I ask, will you place that which proceeds, which indeed is acknowledged to be set between the two parts of your division, and is introduced by a theologian much more excellent than you—namely, by our Savior? Unless, perhaps, due to your "third Testament," you have removed that utterance from the Gospels: *the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father* [John xv, 26]; who, insofar as He proceeds from Him, is not a creature; insofar as He is not begotten, He is not the Son; but insofar as He is intermediate between the unbegotten and the begotten, He is God. And thus, having avoided the snares of your syllogisms, God has manifested Himself, being stronger and more powerful than your divisions. What, then, is this procession? you will ask. Tell you what the unbegottenness of the Father is, and I shall discourse upon the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both rave, casting our eyes into the mysteries of God; and who are we to do this? We who are unable to know even what is at our feet, nor count the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of the age, let alone penetrate into the depths of God and render reasons for a nature so ineffable and surpassing all reason.

From the same oration.

What, then, is it, they say, that is lacking to the Spirit for Him to be the Son? ^C For if nothing were lacking, He would be the Son. We say that nothing is lacking. For nothing is lacking to God. But the difference of their manifestation, if I may so speak, or of their relation to one another, has created their diverse names. For neither does anything lack to the Son for Him to be the Father (for filiation is not a defect), yet He is not the Father on that account. Otherwise, by the same reasoning, something would be lacking to the Father for Him to be the Son. For the Father is not the Son. But these things do not, without doubt, indicate any defect from any quarter, nor a submission of essence: but rather from these words: That He is not begotten, and that He is begotten, and that He proceeds, one marks the Father, another the Son, and [the third] the

Holy Spirit, so that the unconfused distinction of the three persons in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead may be preserved. For neither is the Son the Father (for the Father is one), but is that which the Father is; nor is the Spirit the Son, because He is from God (for the Only-Begotten is one), but is that which the Son is. These three are one, if you consider the Godhead; and one is three, if you consider the properties; so that neither does the one favor Sabellius, nor the three the pernicious division which is rife at this time. ^A

What then? Is the Holy Spirit God? Most certainly. Is He therefore consubstantial? Altogether so, since He is God. Give me then, you say, something from the same source that is one thing, and another thing that is not that thing, and yet is of the same substance with it, and I will admit He is God, and [He is] God. Give you also to me another God, and a nature of God, and I will give you the same Trinity with the same names and realities. But if God is one, and there is one supreme nature, from where then shall I present to you the likeness? ^B Or do you ask again to have it drawn from earthly and human things? It is truly very shameful, and not only shameful, but also very foolish and vain, to take from humble things a likeness of celestial and heavenly things, and to seek—as Isaiah says—the living among the dead. Nevertheless, I will try, for your sake, to bring some aid to this argument from there as well. Now, I think I shall pass over other things, though I could mention many from the history of animals, things partly known to us, and partly known to few, which nature has wrought with wondrous art regarding the birth and generation of living creatures. For they are said to be born, not only from the same things the same, nor from different things different; but even the same [are born] from different things, and different things from the same. And if this discourse carries any conviction for you, there is another manner of generation, where an animal is consumed and procreated by itself. There are also those which, as if by some magnificence of nature, in a certain way depart from themselves, and pass over and are transformed from other animals into others. Furthermore, one may find the same animal partly unbegotten, and partly begotten, and yet of the same substance: which, to be sure, approaches more closely to the likeness of the present question. When I have mentioned one thing from our own kind, which is also known to everyone, the discourse will then move on to another matter. ^C

What then was Adam? A formation of God. What was Eve? A segment of the formation. What was Seth? The offspring of both. Do these, then, seem to you to be the same: formation, segment, and offspring? Why not? Come, are these of the same essence among themselves, or are they different? Of the same. It is therefore confessed that things which exist in different ways may nonetheless have the same essence. And yet these things are not said by me because I would transfer the formation, or the section, or anything else of these things which the nature of a body bears, into the Godhead (for let no contentious wrangler look menacingly at me again), but in order that, as upon a stage, in these matters— ^D

^A these things, they say? For it is not the case that of the one, one thing is the offspring, and another thing is something else. What then? Eva and Seth, are they not from the same Adam? For from whom else? Or are both of them offspring? By no means. But what is it? The one is a portion, the other is an offspring; and yet both are, as among one another, the same; for that they are humans, no one will gainsay. Will you, then, desist from fighting against the Spirit, as if, for example, He were either generated of necessity, or were not consubstantial, nor God, especially when you have realized from human similarity as well that our position is by no means impossible?

^B Ex eadem oratione.

From the same discourse.

But who, you ask, has worshipped the Spirit? Who, either of the ancients or the moderns? Who has prayed to Him? In what place of Scripture is it set forth that He is to be worshipped or prayed to? From where have you drawn this? We shall render a more complete reason for this matter later, when we discuss the unwritten dogmas. But now, it will suffice to say this: the Spirit is He in whom we worship, and through whom we pray. For, He says, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and in truth" (John iv, 24). And again: "For what we should pray for as we ought, we do not know, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered" (Rom. viii, 26). And, "I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray also with the mind" (1 Cor. xiv, 15)—that is, in mind and in Spirit. Therefore, to worship in the Spirit, or to pray, does not seem to me to be anything else than to offer to Him the prayer or the adoration itself. And who is there among those who are inspired, and those who know well that the worship of the One is the worship of the Three, on account of the equality of the dignity and the Godhead of the three Persons, who would not approve of that opinion? ^C And indeed, I shall not even fear that statement, that all things are said to have been made through the Son, as if the Holy Spirit were also to be gathered into the totality of things. For the evangelist says (John i, 3), "All things that were made," not "all things" simply; for neither the Father Himself, nor all those things which were not made. Prove, therefore, that He was made, and then give Him to the Son, and number Him with the creatures. But as long as you do not prove this, that comprehensive phrase helps you in nothing toward impiety. For if He was made, it was assuredly through Christ—I myself would not deny this. But if He was not made, how could He be included in the number of all things, or be made through Christ? Therefore, cease to honor the Father wrongly to the insult of the Son (for it is a bad honor, to deprive the Father of His Son, ^D whosoever you may be who grants Him to be a more excellent creature), and to honor the Son in the ignominy of the Holy Spirit. For He is not the maker of a fellow-servant, but is glorified with One who is of equal dignity. Do not attribute anything of your own to the Trinity, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not curtail the one equally venerable nature in any way. For whatever you pull down from the three, you will have pulled down the whole, or rather, you will have fallen away from the whole. It is better to have a small inkling of the union than to dare complete impiety.

Against the Tritheites

^A The discourse now comes to the principal chapter; and I grieve and groan that a question, which had long since been suppressed and extinguished and had yielded to the faith, is now being renewed in this present time. Yet it is necessary to stand against the babblers, and not to be driven away as if defenseless, since we have the Word and receive the advocacy of the Spirit. If there is God, they say, and God, and God, how are there not three gods? Or how is what is glorified not a polyarchy? Who are these? Those who are more perfect in impiety, or even those of the second party—I mean those who are somewhat well-disposed regarding the Son. For there is a discourse of mine common to both, and one proper and peculiar to the latter.

Now, the discourse toward the latter is of this kind: What do you say to us Tritheites, you who worship the Son, even if you have stood apart from the Spirit? Do you not also have ditheism? For if you deny worship even to the Only-Begotten, you are clearly ranked among the adversaries; and why do we show kindness toward you, as if you were not entirely dead? But if you do worship Him, and are thus far healthily disposed, we shall ask you: What is the account of your ditheism, if you are accused of this? If there is an account of understanding, answer, and provide for us also a way of answering. For whatever arguments you use to repel ditheism, these same will suffice for us—and against the tritheism—insofar as we use you, who are the accusers, as our advocates; and what is more generous than this? ^B

But what is the struggle and discourse common to us against both? To us there is one God, because there is one Godhead; and toward one, those things which are from Him have their reference, even if three persons are believed in. For it is not the case that the one is God more, the other less; nor that the one is prior, the other posterior; nor is it divided by will, nor parted by power, nor can anything of what belongs to divided things be found here. But the Godhead—to speak in one word—is undivided in divided things, and is like a single commingling and tempering of light in three suns that are joined to one another. When, therefore, we look toward the Godhead, and the first cause, and the monarchy, what is presented to us is one. But when we look toward those in whom the Godhead resides—and which are from the first cause, existing from thereafter outside of time and with equal glory—there are three that are worshipped.

What then? They might say, is there not also among the Greeks one Godhead, as those who philosophize more perfectly among them teach, and among us one humanity, the whole race? Yet are there not many gods, and not one, just as there are humans? But in that case, the commonality has the oneness only capable of being contemplated by thought; for the particulars are very much divided from one another, both in time, and in passions, and in power. For we are not only composite, but also contrary, both to one another, and to ourselves, and not even for one day are we perfectly the same persons.

^A but rather, not only during our whole life, but even in body and soul, we are always flowing and changing. And I know not if this may not also have a place in the angels, and in all that upper nature, and that which is after the Trinity, even if they be of a simpler nature and, by reason of their nearness to the supreme Good, more firmly fixed in what is good.

As for those gods and demons, as they themselves call them, whom the gentiles worship, there is no need for them to be accused by us, since they are convicted by their own theologians as being subject to foul passions, as being turbulent, as teeming with evils and subject to changes, and as being at variance not only with one another, but even with those first causes—whom they call Oceans, and Tethyads, and Phanetes, and by I know not what other names. ^B And finally, some god who, out of a love for preeminence, is hostile to his own children, and devours all the others out of insatiable greed, so that he might be the Father of all men and gods, whom he wretchedly devoured and vomited forth. But if they contend that these are myths and certain allegories, as they themselves say, to escape the shame of the account, what then will they say to the claim that “all things have been divided in three,” and that one holds dominion over one part of the world and another over another, being distinct both in their material and in their dignities? But our doctrine does not have the same rationale; nor is this the portion of Jacob, as my theologian says. But each of these has unity, no less in respect to that with which it is conjoined than in respect to itself, by reason of the identity of essence and power. And this is the principle of this union, as far as we have apprehended it. If then this argument is strong, thanks be to God for the contemplation; but if not, let us seek a stronger one. ^C

*From the same oration.*

What, then, is this argument? "Those things," you say, "which are of the same essence are numbered together" (meaning by numbering together a reduction into one number), "but those which have a disparate substance are not numbered together." Hence you yourselves cannot escape the charge of asserting there are three gods according to this argument; but for us there is not even any danger, for we do not say they are consubstantial. You, therefore, have freed yourself from these matters with a single word and have won a sorry victory, having done something similar to those who, for fear of death, take away their own life with a noose. ^D For, lest you labor in defending the monarchy, you have denied the divinity and have surrendered to the enemies that which was sought. But I, even if some labor must be undergone, will not surrender that which is worshipped. Although, even here, I do not see what labor there is to be undergone. "Things which have the same substance," you say, "are numbered together; but those that differ in substance have a singular designation." Whence did you accept this, and from which teachers or fabulists? Does it escape you that every number has this force, to express the quantity of the subjects, not the nature of the things? I, for my part, am so simple, or rather so unlearned, that I call three those things which are such in...

number, even if they differ in nature. But "one, and one, and one," are just so many units, even if joined in substance, not looking so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things, according to which the numbering itself takes place. ^A Since, however, you hold so tenaciously to the letter—although you are at war with the letter—take these proofs from thence: "There are three things in Proverbs which walk well: a lion, and a goat, and a rooster; and in the fourth place, a king speaking to his people," that I may pass over in silence those other quaternities distinct by nature which are recounted there. I also find two cherubim in Moses, which are numbered separately. How then, according to your technical skill, are those three so far sundered from one another in their natures, or these so singular, so homogeneous to one another and joined? For if I were to call God and Mammon two masters, numbered as one, being so far distant from one another, I might perhaps be even more laughed at for this numbering. ^B

But, you say, those things are said to be numbered together, and to be of the same essence, to which the names themselves correspond when they are pronounced: as, "three men," and "three gods," but not "three of these, and those." For what is this response? It truly belongs to a man who is legislating for names, not one who is establishing the truth. Otherwise, by the same reasoning, even to me Peter, and Paul, and John will not be three, nor consubstantial, so long as they are not called "three Peters," or "three Pauls," or as many Johns. For what you have maintained in the case of the more general names, we too shall demand in the case of the more specific ones, according to your fabrication; otherwise you will be unjust, not giving what you have received. ^C But what of John? Since he says in his Catholic Epistles that there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, does he seem to you to be babbling? First, because he has dared to number together things not consubstantial, which you attribute only to consubstantial things. For who would say these are of one and the same substance? Second, because he responded in a way that is not appropriate; but having put forward "three" in the masculine gender, he did not bring "three" in the neuter, contrary to your rules and the laws of your own grammar. ^D Yet what is the difference, whether, having set forward "three," one brings in "one, and one, and one," or, saying "one, and one, and one," one does not call them "three," but "three" [neuter]? Which you deny in the case of the Godhead. For what of the crab to you, which is an animal, and an organ, and a star? What of the dog, which is terrestrial, and marine, and celestial? Do not three crabs, or dogs, seem to you to be described? Certainly. Are they therefore also consubstantial on that account? Who of those possessing sense would say so? Do you see how your argument regarding enumeration has fallen, refuted by so many and such great reasons? For since consubstantial things are not always numbered together, and things of disparate essence are sometimes numbered together, and yet in both we see the names pronounced together, what has accrued to you from your dogmas?

Consider this also, and perhaps it is not without reason. Do "one" and "one" not compose into "two"? And do "two" not resolve into "one" and "one"? Plainly so. If, therefore, according to your argument, the things which are composed are consubstantial, but those which are divided are of a different substance, what follows? That the same things are both consubstantial and of a different substance. I laugh at your pre-numbering and sub-numbering, in which you take such great pride, as if the things themselves were situated within the order of words. For if this were the case, what prevents, by the same reasoning, since the same things are both pre-numbered and sub-numbered by Holy Scripture—because of the equal excellence of their nature—their being both more noble and more base than themselves?

I have the same thing to say regarding the words "God" and "Lord"; and furthermore, regarding these prepositions: "from whom," "through whom," and "in whom," by means of which you define that divine name according to the prescription of art, assigning the first, for instance, to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. For what would you have done if each of these prepositions had been assigned firmly to each Person? Whereas, even though they are all shuffled and used interchangeably with one another, as is evident ^B to studious and accurate readers, you yourself induce from them such a discrepancy of dignity and nature. These things are sufficient for men who are not overly unfair and perverse.

From the same oration.

But if the fact that God is not very clearly, nor indeed often, called by that name in Scripture, as the Father is called first, and the Son afterwards, provides you with an occasion for blasphemy and for this superfluous verbosity and impiety, we shall remove this obstacle for you, once we have said a little concerning things and names, and especially concerning the custom and usage of Scripture.

For of things, some do not exist but are spoken of; others exist but are not spoken of; others neither exist nor are spoken of; and others finally both exist and are spoken of. Do you demand proofs from me for these? I am ready to provide them. God "sleeps" in Scripture, and "watches," and "is angry," and "goes," and has the Cherubim for a throne. What do I hear? Has He ever been subject to passions? When have you heard that God is a body? Therefore, this, since it does not exist, is a fiction. For we have named the things of God from our own affairs, as best we could. ^C When He rests apart from us, and, so to speak, casts off care for us—for reasons which He alone knows—He is said to sleep. For our sleeping is such a state, inactive and useless. But to do good suddenly after a change is to "watch." For waking is the dissolution of sleep, just as a visitation is the dissolution of an aversion. We have decided that "being angry" is to punish; for thus we ourselves are moved by anger to punish. And that He works now here, now there, is called "going." For a transition from one place to another is a journey. But that He rests in those holy and celestial intelligences, and, as ^D it were, dwells among them, is called "sitting" and "being enthroned"—and this too is human; for the divine does not rest in any being as it rests in the saints. And [we call] that swift movement "flight," and that inspection a "face"; and to give and to receive we call a "hand," and some other [thing]...

^A of the powers or energies of God; he has depicted for us something else from the sphere of bodily things.

Again, from whence have you obtained "the unbegotten" or "the anarch" [without beginning], those fortresses of yours, or even we [the term] "the immortal"? Show these by name, or else we shall reject them, since they are not written, or we shall strike them out. And you have perished by your own assumptions, having had your names taken away, and the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Or is it plain that they are derived from those things which gather these [terms] together, even if these [exact terms] are not spoken? From what things, then? "I am the first, and I am after these"; and, "Before me there is no ^B other God, and after me there shall be none." For the whole of "it is" is mine; neither having begun, nor about to cease. Having received these, you have called that which resulted from them—that there is nothing before Him, nor does He have any prior cause—"anarch" and "unbegotten"; and that which will not cease to be, "immortal" and "indestructible." Indeed, the first pairs are such, and are in this state.

But what are those things that neither are nor are spoken of? An evil God; a square sphere; the past is the present; man is not a composite being. For whom have you ever known to have reached such a pitch of insanity ^C as to dare to think or to utter such a thing? It remains to show what those things are that both are and are spoken of: God, man, angel, judgment, vanity; such are the arguments by which the subversion of faith and the emptying of the mystery are brought about.

Since, therefore, there is such a difference between names and things, why do you so slavishly serve the letter, and join yourself to Jewish wisdom, and follow after syllables, having abandoned the things themselves? If, when you were saying "twice five" or "twice seven," I should gather "ten" or "fourteen" from your words; or if, ^D from your saying "a rational, mortal animal," I should conclude "man," would I seem to you to be babbling? And how could that be possible, when I am saying what is yours? For words are not more truly the possession of the one who speaks than they are of the one who necessitates the speaking. Just as, therefore, in that case I would not look to what is said so much as what is intended, in the same way, if I found some other thing from Scripture that—even if it is not stated, or not stated clearly—can still be understood and gathered, I would not so much fear you, that caviller about words, as to shrink from the very enunciation of it.

From the same discourse.

The Old Testament openly proclaimed the Father, [and] the Son more obscurely. The New Testament made manifest the Son, [and] hinted at the divinity of the Spirit. But now the Spirit is active among us, providing a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, while the divinity of the Father had not yet been accepted, for the Son to be openly proclaimed, nor, while the Son had not been accepted, for the Holy Spirit to be—if I may say something even more bold—loaded upon [us],

^A [us], not like food that bears down [on the soul] above its strength and blinds the sight that still exposes itself to the solar light, but rather [so that] they might act according to their strength, and with gradual additions, and, as David said, "steps," and "goings from strength to strength," [Ps. LXXXIII, 6] [the light of the] Trinity might shine forth upon those who are more brilliant. For this reason, I believe, he also visits the disciples by parts, measuring himself according to the capacity of those who receive him; at the beginning of the Gospel, after the passion, after the ascension, performing powers, being breathed upon, appearing in tongues of fire, and gradually being declared by Jesus, as you yourself will perceive if you attend more diligently. "I will ask," he says, "the Father, and he will send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth" [Joan. XIV, 16], so that no one might think there is an opponent to God, or that the words were being spoken by some other power. Then, "He will send," indeed, "in my name." He omitted "I will ask," and kept "he will send." Then, "I will send," to show his own dignity. Soon he says, "he will come," by which word the power of the Spirit himself is judged. Do you see the splendors shining upon us by degrees? And the order of theology, which it is better for us also to keep, neither revealing ^C it all at once, nor concealing it to the end? For the former is unskilled, the latter godless; and the former might frighten strangers, the latter might even alienate our own [people]. To what has been said I will add what perhaps has come into the minds of others also, but which I consider the fruit of my own thinking. The Savior had certain things which, although the disciples were imbued with many doctrines, he said they could not bear—for the reasons, perhaps, that I have mentioned—and therefore he concealed them. Furthermore, when he had said that ^D we would be taught all things by the Spirit when he had come, I think that the divinity of the Spirit itself is one of these things, which was to be clear later, when the knowledge was already ripe, and could be grasped, after the Savior's restoration, no longer making the miracle unbelievable. For what could be greater than this, which either he promised or the Spirit taught? If indeed one must think something great and worthy of the magnificence of God to be that which one promised and the other taught. I feel this way about these things, and I will feel this way, and whoever is a friend to me will feel the same: to worship God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit—three properties, one divinity, not divided in glory, honor, essence, or kingdom, as a certain divine man philosophized a little while ago. May he who is not in this frame of mind not see the Daystar rising, as the Scripture says, nor the glory of its splendor from thence, but rather let him be carried along by the times, becoming different at different moments, and deliberating stupidly about the greatest matters. For if he is not to be worshipped, how does he make me divine through baptism? But if he is to be worshipped, why is he not also to be venerated? And if he is to be venerated, why is he not also God? For one thing hangs from another, like a truly golden and saving chain. And from the Spirit we have our regeneration, and from our regeneration our restoration, and from our restoration [comes] the knowledge of the

dignity of Him who recreates. This is what one might say, if he were to posit what is unwritten. ^A But now, there shall come to you also the swarm of testimonies, from which the divinity of the Spirit, even if unwritten, will be shown to be most clearly written to those who are not entirely dull, nor estranged from the Spirit. Consider it thus: Christ is born, He runs before Him; He is baptized, He brings witness; He is tempted, He leads Him up; He performs powers, He bears witness with Him; He ascends to the Father, He succeeds Him. For what is there among the great things that He cannot do, being God? Or why, when He is God, is He not addressed as such, except for [the concepts of] unbegottenness and of begottenness? For it was necessary that the properties remain with the Father and the Son, so that there might not be confusion in the Godhead, which brings order and beauty to all other things as well. ^B

From the same oration.

I, for my part, am struck with horror when I contemplate the wealth of titles, and how many names those who oppose the Spirit shamelessly resist. For He is called "Spirit of God," "Spirit of Christ," "Mind of Christ," "Spirit of the Lord," "the Lord Himself," "Spirit of adoption, of truth, of liberty," "Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of strength, of knowledge, of piety, of the fear of God." For He is the author of all of these. He who fills all things by His essence, Who contains all things, Whose essence fills the whole world, whom the world cannot contain by His power; who is good, upright, a prince by nature, not by grace; who sanctifies, ^C and is not sanctified; who measures, and is not measured; who communicates Himself to others, but receives nothing from anyone; who fills, and is not filled; who contains, and is not contained; who is perceived as an inheritance, who is glorified, who is counted together, who is threatened; the "finger of God"; fire, just as God is, for the indication, I suppose, of the consubstantiality—the Spirit who makes, who recreates through baptism, through the resurrection; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who breathes where and in what measure He wills; who guides, speaks, sends, separates, is provoked, is tempted, who reveals, who illuminates, who vivifies, nay, who is Himself light and life; who makes men the dwellings of God, and renders them divine; ^D who initiates, so that He even anticipates baptism, and is sought after baptism; who does all things that God does; who is divided in tongues of fire; who distributes gifts, makes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers; intelligible, manifold, wise, manifest, who can be hindered by no obstacle, stained by no defilement. Which is equivalent to saying: most wise, and various in His actions, illuminating and making everything plain, of His own right, immutable, omnipotent, beholding all things, passing through all intelligible, pure, and most subtle spirits—to wit, angelic, prophetic, and apostolic—and that at the same time, while they are distributed to others, here and there; by which is signified His uncircumscribed nature—those who say and teach these things, and, moreover, [call Him] another Paraclete, as if

they were naming another God—those who, knowing that blasphemy against Him alone is unforgivable, inflicted such a fearful reprimand and infamy upon Ananias and Sapphira, because they lied to the Holy Spirit as to God, not to a man; what do these seem to you to be preaching: is it God that the Spirit is, or something else? Truly, you are indeed very dull and far removed from the Spirit if you question this and require someone to teach you. These titles, therefore, are so numerous and so animate. For why is there any need to set before you the testimonies from the Scriptures? As for whatever is said here in a humbler manner—that He is given, sent, distributed, a gift, a bounty, an insufflation, a promise, an intercession, or anything else of the sort—not to speak of each one, they must be referred to the first Cause, so that the One from whom He proceeds may be shown, and so that three divided principles and a multiplicity of gods not be accepted. For it is equally impious to combine them as Sabellius does, and to divide them as Arius does—the former confusing the persons, the latter the natures.

From the same, from the Discourse on Epiphany

From the same, from the Discourse on Pentecost

...of the order from which you distinguish it, weigh it along with the Holy Spirit and with us. For I trust that you are in some measure partakers of Him, and I will consider the matter as now being with those who are kin. ^A Either grant me something that is intermediate between servitude and sovereignty, that I may there place the dignity of the Spirit; or, if you flee from the name of servitude, it will not be obscure where you will place that which is being sought. But you are distressed by syllables, and you stumble at the word, and this becomes for you a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, just as Christ also was to some. This is a human passion. Let us come to an agreement with one another spiritually. Let us become lovers of our brothers rather than lovers of self. Grant the power of the Godhead, and we will grant you the concession of the word; confess the nature in other words, to which you are more accustomed, and we will tend to you as the infirm, stealing away some things that are pleasing and agreeable to you. For it is indeed shameful—shameful, I say, and sufficiently senseless—for those who are vigorous in soul to be petty about the sound of a word, and to hide the treasure, as if envying it to others, or fearing to sanctify even your tongue; but it is more shameful for us to suffer what we reproach, and while we condemn petty-mindedness, to be ourselves petty-minded about letters.

^B Confess, O men, the Trinity to be of one Godhead, or, if it pleases you more, of one nature; and we shall ask of you the word "God" regarding the Spirit. For He who gave the first will surely give the second, and most of all, if that which is being contested be a certain spiritual timidity, and not a diabolical contention. Let me speak more clearly and more briefly: neither do you find fault with us regarding the more elevated word (for there is no envy of an ascent), nor shall we reproach you for that which you are for the time being capable of, until you are carried by another way to the same destination. For we do not seek to conquer, but to take back brothers, by whose separation we are being torn apart. These things are for you, among whom we find something also that is vital, being those who are sound regarding the Son; whose life we admire, even if we do not altogether praise their doctrine. You who have the things of the Spirit, take also the Spirit, that you may not only compete, but also compete lawfully, from which also comes the crown. May this reward of the society be given to you, to confess the Spirit perfectly, and to proclaim Him along with us and before us as much as is worthy. I am even emboldened to... ^{C D}

From the same oration.

^A perfected, while he himself is not perfected; filling, not filled; sanctifying, not sanctified; deifying, not deified. He is always the same with himself, and with those to whom he is joined, the same and equal; invisible, beyond time, uncircumscribed, immutable; lacking quality, quantity, form, and touch, self-moving, and having eternal motion; free in will, powerful in himself, omnipotent (although to the first cause, just as all that belongs to the Only-Begotten, so also that which belongs to the Holy Spirit is referred); Life, and life-giving; Light, and the dispenser of light; Goodness itself, and the fountain of goodness. A spirit upright, sovereign, lordly, sending, marking out, constructing a temple for himself, showing the way, working according to his own will, distributing charisms; a Spirit of adoption, of truth, of wisdom, of understanding, of knowledge, of piety, of counsel, of strength, of fear, of those things that are enumerated. ^B For the Father is known and the Son is glorified, and by them alone is he known—a single order, one worship, one adoration, power, perfection, sanctification. What need is there of many words? All things that the Father has are the Son's, except that he is not unbegotten. All things that the Son has are the Spirit's, except for the generation. These things, according to my reasoning, do not divide the substance, but are distinguished around the substance.

From the same discourse.

This he energized, first in the angelic and celestial powers, and in as many as are first after God and surround God. For they do not have their perfection, and splendor, and their being difficult—or rather impossible—to move toward evil from anywhere else than from the Holy Spirit. ^C Then in the Fathers and in the prophets, of whom some saw or knew God through an image, while others even foreknew the future, having their governing part of the mind imprinted by the Holy Spirit, and dealing with future things as if they were present. For such is the power and potential of the Spirit. Then in the disciples of Christ (for I pass over Christ, to whom he was present, not as working, but as accompanying an equal), and to these in a threefold way, according to the measure they were able to receive, and at three times: before Christ was glorified through the Passion; after he was glorified through the Resurrection; and after his Ascension into heaven, or restoration, or whatever one ought to call the matter. ^D The first healing of diseases and the expulsion of spirits, which clearly did not take place without the power of the Spirit, manifests this; as does the breathing upon them after the work of our salvation was accomplished, which surely had the mark of a more divine inspiration; and finally, this present distribution of fiery tongues, which we also celebrate with a solemn feast. But that first was obscure; the second, more expressive; the present, more perfect, as he is no longer present only by operation, as before, but essentially, so to speak, as one who is cohabiting and living with us. For it was fitting that, since the Son had conversed with us bodily, he himself should also appear bodily; and that after Christ had returned to himself, He should descend to us—coming as Lord, but sent as not contrary to God. For such expressions declare the harmony no less than they distinguish the natures.

^B Therefore, He proceeds after Christ, so that the Paraclete might not be wanting to us; but He says "another," so that you may consider the equality of honor. For what he says, "another, another," establishes Him as such as I am. Moreover, this name indicates an equal degree of authority, not dishonor. For the word "another" is not used of things alien, but of those whose substance is the same.

From the same, from his second letter to Cledonius, which on account of its length is like a book.

We have never preferred anything to the faith declared at the Council of Nicaea by the holy Fathers who assembled there for the overthrow of the Arian heresy, nor can we prefer anything; but we are of that faith, and we shall be, by the grace of God, further elaborating what was spoken by them incompletely concerning the Holy Spirit, because this question was not at that time being agitated; for when they had decreed that it was necessary to believe that the Father and the Son are of one divinity, they acknowledged the Holy Spirit as God, and as the Holy Spirit.

Again, against the Spirit-fighters, from the discourse of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, to Simplicius.

But concerning the Holy Spirit, those who blaspheme say the very same thing that they say concerning the Lord, that He also is a created being. But the Church, just as it believes concerning the Son, so also believes concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is uncreated; and that all created things become good through participation in the supreme Good, but the Holy Spirit does not stand in need of any other by whom He is made good. For He is good by nature, as Scripture testifies. And that creation is guided by the Spirit, but the Spirit bestows the guidance. Creation is governed, but the Spirit governs. Creation is exhorted, but the Spirit exhorts. Creation serves, but the Spirit frees. Creation is made wise, but the Spirit gives the grace of wisdom. Creation participates in the gifts, but the Spirit distributes them by His own authority. For one and the same Spirit works all these things, dividing to each one individually as He wills. And countless other testimonies can be drawn from the Scriptures, by which it becomes evident that all the sublime and God-befitting names which are attributed to the Father and the Son, these also are considered to apply to the Holy Spirit: immortality, beatitude, goodness, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, and whatever else is spoken of as excellent regarding the Father and the Son, the same is said of the Holy Spirit, except for those things by which the persons themselves are truly and without confusion distinguished. I mean that the Holy Spirit is neither called Father, nor Son, but the other names, by which the Father and the Son are called, these are also applied by Scripture to the Holy Spirit. By these things, therefore, we understand that He is above creation,

and it follows that the Holy Spirit is, likewise, above creation. Therefore, he who places the Holy Spirit above created things has embraced the correct and sound doctrine. For he will confess one uncreated nature being contemplated in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. ^B But since, in order to prove, as they think, that the Holy Spirit is created, they bring forward the words of the Prophet who says: *He who strengthens the thunder, and creates a spirit, and declares his Christ to men*¹, one must know that the Prophet is speaking of a different spirit that is created in the strengthening of the thunder, and not of the Holy Spirit. For by a mystical interpretation, the Gospel is understood by the word "thunder." In those, therefore, in whom faith in the Gospel is made firm and immovable, they, through faith, pass from being flesh to becoming spirit, just as the Lord says, that *what is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit*. God, therefore, is He who, by strengthening the evangelical voice for those who believe, makes him who believes a spirit. He who is born of the Spirit, therefore, has become a spirit through such a voice, and declares Christ, because, as the Apostle says, *no one can say "Lord Jesus" except in the Holy Spirit*².

From the same, from the discourse concerning the divinity of the Son and the Spirit.

^C The opponents of the Spirit deny that He is called God in Scripture, and they say that the term "divinity" signifies nature. And since this is not attributed to the Spirit, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not of the same nature as the Father and the Son. But let the foolish ones take the serpent as the accuser of their own curse. For it shows that the term "divinity" signifies the power of vision, and not that it is indicative of the divine nature, when, counseling our first parents to touch the forbidden tree, it said: *Your eyes will be opened, and you will be as gods*³. Therefore, the term "divinity" indicates not the nature, but the faculty of seeing. Will they deny, then, that the Holy Spirit is seen, and will they struggle about this matter? ^D If, therefore, He is seen, He is in very deed called God. But if they seek to understand this from Scripture, who saw the sacrilege of Ananias, which he committed in secret alone with his wife? Who reported it to Peter? Was it not the Holy Spirit, who was both in Peter and present with Ananias? For this reason, Peter says: *Why, he says, has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God*⁴. Just as, therefore, he who insults one endowed with reason insults a man, and does not confer that insult upon two, for it is referred to one person defined by two names; so also Peter, when saying that Ananias had lied to both the Spirit and to God, demonstrated to those with understanding that they are one, not two.

¹ Ps. CXXXI, 17. ² I Cor. XII, 3. ³ Gen. III, 5. ⁴ Act. V, 3, 4.

From the same, from the third discourse on prayer.

^A Matthew the evangelist says, "Thy kingdom come." Luke, however, instead of "Thy kingdom come," has said, "Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us." What will those who speak boldly against the Holy Spirit answer to this? With what mind do they transform the height of the kingdom into the humility of servitude? The Holy Spirit is the kingdom, as the evangelist Luke loudly proclaims. And the kingdom reigns over all, and is not reigned over. If, therefore, the Spirit reigns, how do these senseless people count him among the serving nature?

From the same discourse.

"Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us," says Luke. If, therefore, to forgive sins belongs to God alone, as even the unbelieving Jews themselves said, then he who attributed to the Holy Spirit the power of the remission of sins has surely attributed divinity to him as well. But indeed, the Apostle attributes this same power to the Only-Begotten. For he says, "Having made purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty of the Father." Therefore, the work is of both—of the Spirit who cleanses sins, and of Christ who has effected the cleansing. But if the operation is one, then the power of these is certainly the same. For every operation is an effect of power. If, therefore, both the operation and the power are one, how is it possible to conceive of a difference of nature in those in whom we discover no difference in power or operation?

From the same discourse.

^B The Holy Spirit is, and is called, the Spirit of God and of Christ; but the Son, though he is from God, is not, nor is he called, the Spirit of the Spirit. For this series of order does not follow, so that this relative sequence can be reversed with equal validity, and that, just as we call the Spirit "Christ's," we should also name Christ "the Spirit's."

From the same, from the discourse on baptism.

"Baptizing them," he says, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Why in the name of the Father? Because he is the source of all things. Why in the name of the Son? Because he is the creator of the creation. Why in the name of the Holy Spirit? Because he perfects all things. Why, then, do you fragment the three Hypostases into different natures, and produce three gods unlike one another, while receiving one and the same grace from all?

From the same discourse.

The Holy Spirit says through David: "Today, if you will hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as in the provocation, according to the day of temptation in the desert, where your fathers tempted me." These

^A words the divine Apostle quotes, and in saying this, he brings forward these sayings of the Prophet, applying them to the Person of the Spirit. Who, then, is he whom their fathers tempted in the desert? Who did they provoke? Learn from the Prophet himself, who says: "They tempted God the Most High." But indeed, the Apostle, having introduced the Person of the Holy Spirit, attributes these words to Him, saying: "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'According to the day of temptation in the desert, where your fathers tempted me.'" Therefore, he whom the Prophet named the Most High, this one the divine Apostle says is the Holy Spirit. If, then, the Holy Spirit says, "My fathers tempted me in the desert," and the Prophet testifies that the One tempted in the desert ^B is God the Most High, the mouths of the Spirit-fighters who speak iniquity against the Lord are stopped, since both the Apostle and the Prophet clearly proclaim the divinity of the Spirit through the things said.

*From the same discourse to Eustathius against the Spirit-fighters.*

When the Lord was giving commands to the Apostles regarding divine baptism, He joined the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. Therefore, He who is joined in the life-giving power, by which our nature is transformed from corruption to incorruption, will in all things possess communion with the Father and the Son. ^C

*From the same discourse.*

If we were to see actions differing from one another that proceed from the Father, and from the Son, and from the Holy Spirit, we would infer from the diversity of the actions that the acting natures are also different. For it is not possible that things which differ in the definition of their nature should be united in kind of action. But if we recognize that there is one action of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we must necessarily conclude from the same power of the actions a conjunction of nature. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sanctify, console, and give life, and perform all such things without any distinction. ^D Therefore, for whom there is one and the same action, for them also there is one and the same nature.

*From the same discourse.*

If He who anoints is the Father, and He who is anointed is the Son, and the anointing itself is the Holy Spirit, and furthermore the anointing is a sign and mark of kingship, then the Holy Spirit is not separated even from the royal action.

*A collection of sayings from the Holy Scriptures against the Spirit-fighters by the holy Cyril, by which the Holy Spirit is demonstrated to be God. This collection was taken from the Thesaurus, but sporadically and by way of epitome.*

*From the Epistle to the Corinthians.*

"He who is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." Behold, he clearly calls the Spirit Lord here. And he acts more plainly when he speaks concerning the Jews: to this end—

he says, the same veil remains in the reading of the Old Testament, not revealed, because it is destroyed in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil is placed upon their hearts. But when they shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And again: "But we all with open face beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

From the same

Paul, writing concerning himself at the beginning of the Epistle, says: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ." Behold, you see clearly here that the name and office of the apostle are from Christ, and he affirms that he receives it through the Son. ^B Moreover, in the Acts of the Holy Apostles, it is written thus: "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them." If, therefore, being called by the Spirit, he says that he was called by Jesus Christ, he clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is not alien to the essence of the Son.

From the same

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. For God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." If the spirit of man knows the things that are in him without anyone revealing them, but as being naturally and properly belonging to him, and the Spirit of God likewise searcheth all things and knows even the deep things ^C of God; therefore, the Holy Spirit is in God and the Father, and will be of the divine nature, just as the human spirit is of the human nature.

From the same

We say that the Holy Spirit is from God, and we have believed thus. But those who are most ready merely for calumny say that all other things also are from God, since Paul writes: "One God the Father, of whom are all things." Then they think they refute [the idea that] the Spirit is from the essence of the Father, because the phrase "of whom" is also used concerning created things, which, when applied to the Spirit, demonstrates that He exists naturally from His essence. But it is possible to answer this: that even concerning the Son, the name "Son" is properly used, yet it is also used of men improperly. And surely, if ^D it is bestowed upon some by gift and grace, it does not therefore abolish the One who possesses it naturally. So also the [phrase] "of whom," though it be ascribed to created things, nevertheless does not take away the sublime and divine dignity of the Spirit, nor does it make Him any less of the same essence. But when He is...

^B referred to things created, this is because they had their being from God through the Son, as is evident.

From the same

Paul writes again to the Corinthians: “For we are the temple of the living God, as God has said: ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.’” And again after this: “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed.” And again: “If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which you are.” If, therefore, by receiving the Spirit, we are declared to be the temple and house of God, inasmuch as we have God Himself dwelling and walking in us, as it is written, how is the Holy Spirit not God, even if those who think otherwise are unwilling to admit it?

From the Epistle to the Romans

Paul writes to some, thinking and speaking most correctly: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father.’” If, therefore, the Holy Spirit demonstrates that those in whom He dwells are children of God, and makes them partakers of the divine nature, so that those who are thereby united to God, who is above all, cry out with confidence, “Abba, Father,” He is not to be ranked among servants, nor among created things; but rather the dignity of the divine essence is to be attributed to Him, since He is from that very essence, and ^C is granted by it to the saints through the Son, and thus makes those in whom He is into gods and children of God.

From the Acts of the Apostles

The prince of the apostles, to whom the divine mystery, as the Savior says, was not revealed by flesh and blood, but by the Father who is in heaven, speaks thus to Ananias, who brought the price of the field but kept back a part of it: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land?” And then he adds: “You have not lied to men but to God.” Therefore, if he who lies to the Holy Spirit lies to God, the Holy Spirit is surely God, and naturally in God.

From the same book

God, speaking in one place about the good things promised from the advent of our Savior, declares: “I will raise up shepherds to them according to My heart, and they shall feed them, feeding them with knowledge.” Paul, the herald of truth, speaking to the elders of the Ephesians: “Take heed,” he says, “to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Since, therefore, God fulfills with power what He promised He would do, and raises up shepherds according to the promise made in the prophets, the Spirit is therefore not alien to the divine essence, but such ^D

as a natural and essential power, and one subsisting, coming forth from it, and remaining in it, performs all things that are of God. ^A

*From the same book.*

Paul, speaking to the Athenians concerning religion, says: *For in him we live, and move, and be* (Acts XVII, 28). But our Lord Jesus Christ ascribes this power, which is to us from God, to the Holy Spirit, saying: *It is the Spirit that quickeneth* (John VI, 64). Therefore, the Spirit is God, in whom we live, and move, and be, according to the testimony of Paul and our Savior.

*From the Psalms.*

The blessed David sings in a certain place, directing his words to God: *Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me* (Ps. CXXXVIII, 7-10). ^B Since, therefore, he names the Spirit and the face of the Father, as expressing the essence from which he is through divine action, he also names the hand on account of the power in him that is the maker of all things; how then is he not God, and joined to the Father by essence, since he is from him, and in him; just as the hand is not separated from the human body, but is rather bound to it, and naturally rooted in it? ^C

*From the Epistle to the Corinthians.*

Paul writes in this manner: *Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost* (1 Cor. XII, 3). From which words it is easily evident that he who is a partaker of the Holy Spirit knows the Lord Jesus; but he who is destitute of the Holy Spirit is ignorant of him. How then does he who has attained the Spirit know that Jesus is the Lord? Just as those who have tasted honey, by its quality, know that honey is sweet, so also do those who have become partakers of the Spirit. From the essence of the Son, therefore, the Spirit constitutes a certain quality, so to speak, of God, who rules over all things. But if this is so, he is God, and not a creature, as those of a different opinion think. ^D

*From the same.*

The blessed Paul, ascribing the distributions of divine gifts to the action of the Holy Spirit, says again: *To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the one Spirit; to another divers kinds of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will* (1 Cor. XII, 8-11). The same Apostle, since he knew the Spirit to be God, says in the same Epistle: *And God hath set some in the church, first*

apostles, then prophets, thirdly doctors, then miracles, then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues* ^A. Why, then, do they doubt whether the Spirit is God by essence, those who are most ready only to calumniate, when Paul most clearly declares that it is the Spirit who distributes the kinds of graces *as he will*, and then again asserts that it is God who bestows such things upon the saints in the churches? How, then, is it not absurd for those who wish to think rightly to attend not to the words of Paul, but to the follies of others? Therefore, the Spirit is God, even if ignorant men do not wish it.

*From the same.* The same Apostle writes again: *If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?* By spiritual things, he certainly calls divine things, just as by carnal things he refers to those that pertain to the flesh. For this reason, if he correctly called divine things—that is, the mysteries of God—spiritual, God is surely Spirit, whose mysteries he called spiritual.

*From the Gospel according to John.* The Savior speaks of himself in one place in the Gospels: *I am the truth*. But blessed John, showing the Spirit to be from the essence of the Father and the Son, says: *The Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father*. In his Epistle, however, he says: *The Spirit is truth*. How, then, when he proceeds from the Father, and is the Spirit of truth by reason of ^B likeness and the identity of the same essence, so as to be called truth himself, could he be made and created? Such a thing is indeed absurd. Therefore, the Spirit is God, if indeed he is truly truth and proceeds from the Father.

*From the same.* Blessed John, discoursing on the Word of God, said that he is the *true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world*. But the most wise Paul asserted that the Holy Spirit shines in our hearts for the illumination of the *glory of God in the person of Christ*. Since, then, the Word is the true light, ^C and the Holy Spirit shines, it must necessarily be confessed that the Holy Spirit is of the essence of the Word, through whom he illuminates every man, emitting the splendor of the Holy Spirit as a kind of ray of his own essence.

*Objection of the heretics.* If you affirm, they say, that God anoints the souls of the saints with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will occupy the place and order of an ointment. Furthermore, how can it be that the ointment is of the same essence as the one who anoints, when our custom does not allow this? O you who are drunk with every folly, and full of the most shameful ^D rashness of all!

^A Will you not, coming to your senses for a moment and casting aside thoughts of physical things, ascend to the sublime magnitude of theology, and grasp in a manner worthy of God what is said about the divine nature, even if it is put forth in human words and does not surpass the form of our common usage, because it is difficult for the hearers to understand it in such a way? But in order to answer something suited to your folly: if the Spirit is to occupy the place and order of ointment according to you, since the ointment must necessarily be of a different essence ^B than the one who anoints, then it is necessary to say, since ointment is composed of many parts by those who are skilled in this, that the Holy Spirit must also be composed of many and various parts for us. And again, since ointment is without reason, let the Holy Spirit also be without reason. The blasphemy in this will certainly fall back upon their own heads; but as for us, let us object to them: If the Spirit is of a different essence from God, who anoints the saints by the Spirit himself, why, when the Spirit dwells in us, is Christ shown to dwell in us, who is not different in essence ^C from the Father? Recognizing this, Paul also writes: "That he may grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell through faith in our hearts." Since, therefore, Christ dwells in the inner man through the Spirit, it is clearly evident that that through whom he is seen to dwell in the saints is not foreign to his own essence.

From the Gospel according to John

From the same

If the Spirit makes those in whom he might be gods, and produces targets of the divine nature, then he is naturally of the divine essence, and provided through the Son to the creation, and refashions it as like to himself. For just as the own proper work of light is to illuminate, and it could not illuminate anything unless it were light, so also the work of the divine Spirit is to make those who have received him divine, and not even [could he do this] of nature

Objection of the Heretics

It is not "He shall take of mine, and sanctify you" (though even if it had been said in that way, the hearers would have perceived no offense from it), but "He shall take of mine," says the Savior, "and will announce it to you." For he will speak nothing from himself, but will speak what he has heard. Since, having completed the economy of redeeming the human race in the flesh, he was about to ascend to the Father and had promised to send the Paraclete to his disciples, lest anyone suspect that the Holy Spirit would institute anything contrary to his own intent, he demonstrates clearly that, since it is his own Spirit, it will also dispense things from him. For he says, "He will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears, he will speak," because "he shall take of mine." ^B It is as if honey, speaking of the natural sweetness within it, were to say: "It will inject nothing into those tasting it from itself, but will take from mine," with the quality naturally passing over—if I may put it so—from the essences into those things that proceed inseparably from them, such as, just as we have said, sweetness from honey, or heat from fire, or coldness from water. Therefore, holiness is not imparted to the Spirit, but it is natural to him and by essence.

He to whom holiness is communicated receives it as a vessel, while previously existing in his own nature, of which kind are both man and angel or any other nature endowed with reason. Let them therefore tell us, they who dare to affirm the Spirit is holy in such a way that holiness was imparted to him by the Father and the Son, what he himself is by his own nature. ^C But we say that he is nothing else according to the divine Scriptures. Therefore, he is not holy by communion, nor by composition, but is an essence and nature that sanctifies, and the quality—if I may say so—of God and the Father, just as the sweetness of the honey and the fragrance of the flower.

That which comes to anyone by communion as a gift can also be taken away. For only those things that inhere by essence cannot be separated. Wherefore, if they say that holiness is in the Spirit by accession and accident, why do they not affirm, by the same reasoning, that the Spirit can exist without holiness? But this would be impious. Therefore, the Spirit is not holy by communion, but naturally as from God. ^D

^A

From the Epistle to the Romans

From the Epistle to the Corinthians

From the Gospel

From the Epistle of James

From the Epistle of Peter

knowing that the Spirit is not alien to the divine nature. Since, therefore, Peter calls the Holy Spirit God, is not he who reckons Him among created things and dares to speak against the preaching of the holy apostles ^A a godless ^B and senseless man?

From John’s Epistle

From the same

From the Gospel according to Matthew

From the Gospel according to John

^A From the same. *When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me.* If the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and the Father, and is as it were a kind of fruit of His essence, and the Father is unbegotten and uncreated, how could the Spirit, who comes forth from Him, be begotten? And how are we called temples of God, receiving the Spirit, if He is not God, according to the foolishness of some?

From the same. If the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is not of a different nature or a different essence, but is of the divine essence. Therefore He knows the depths of God, and understands the things of God, just as our soul knows its own things. But if anyone thinks that "searching" implies ignorance, he will find this same thing applied to the Father; for He says: *He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is.* If the God of all does not search through ignorance, but clearly knows all things before they come to pass, then the Holy Spirit also does not search the depths of God through ignorance. For how would that comparison be fitting to one who is ignorant: *As the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him, so also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God?* For to know and to search are contrary things. Yet the soul does not search its own things, but knows them completely. Therefore the Holy Spirit has the exact knowledge of God. And just as *no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father,* so, he says, *no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.* From the things said, we learn the commonality of the nature.

Since, however, those who labor with every kind of ^B shamelessness—I mean the disciples of the blasphemies of Arius and Eunomius—say that the Spirit of God is God Himself, and not a distinct person, the blessed Paul necessarily demonstrates the person of the Spirit: *For we,* he says, *have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.* Therefore, by saying that we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, he taught that the Holy Spirit is not of the same genus as the world, but belongs to the divine essence; and besides this, he taught that he is not speaking about God and the Father, but about the Holy Spirit, whose grace believers receive. Therefore he said "the Spirit who is from God," teaching that He has His essence from the Father, and is of His nature, not in the way that things are made and created, but as— ^D

he knows, he who knows the Son, and he alone who knows the Father, and he alone who knows the Father and the Son. We have learned this from God, but we have not been taught the mode; rather, we are content with the measure of knowledge that has been given to us, and we do not anxiously inquire into things that cannot be comprehended by us. ^B

*Of the same.* When Luke had said in the Acts: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Separate for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them"; and when he added: "Being sent forth by the Holy Spirit they came down to Seleucia"; and having related how they traveled through Cyprus, and Lycia, and Lycaonia, and Pamphylia, and Bithynia and preached the Gospel, he adds: "And from thence they sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been delivered to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they had arrived and gathered the Church together, they related what things God had done with them." Since he had previously made mention of the Spirit—as he who had separated Paul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them—he calls Him God after their return, and places the name of God twice. First, saying: "They came to Antioch, whence they had been delivered to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled"; second, saying: "And when they had arrived and had gathered the Church together, they related what things God had done with them." ^C

*Of the same.* Divine Scripture knows how to call the Holy Spirit the "finger of God," just as Christ also said: "If I by the finger of God cast out demons," which another evangelist calls the "Spirit of God." Likewise, it calls the Son the "right hand" and "arm," as in that place: "His right hand and his holy arm have saved them." As, therefore, the arm is of the same essence with him whose arm it is, so also is the finger with him whose finger it is. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is of the same essence with the Father and the Son; and if he is of the same essence, he is also God. ^D

TITLE XIII. Of Photius the Patriarch, against the adherents of Rome: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son.

This very brief treatise, subjected to theological assessment, was recently reprinted in Greek and Latin by J. Hergenröther, professor at the University of Würzburg, after Photius's book *On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit*, which our volume CII contains. See what the learned editor has prefaced, and [the] column [containing] the text of the work itself with a Latin interpretation; for it is more than enough that Photius's heretical dogmas have been refuted once. EDIT. PATR.

TITLE XIV. Against Apollinarius. From the disputation of the great Athanasius against the Apollinarist Macedonian.

MACEDONIAN: You err not only in saying that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, but also that the Lord

had a soul when He was made flesh. You do nothing great by denying the consubstantiality if you deny that He had a soul. For this is characteristic of those who say He is of different substance and unlike. For in order to say that the substance of the Only-Begotten is passible, they say it is soulless, and from this they construct the "unlike." MACEDONIAN: But we do not say He is unlike; we say He is without a soul. ORTHODOX: Do you admit that at the time of death He began to be grieved and troubled, as it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew, and in the Gospel according to Mark, "He began to be amazed and troubled"? ^B MACEDONIAN: Yes. ORTHODOX: Is it the Divinity that is troubled and fears death, or the soulless body? MACEDONIAN: Clearly, the Divinity that was made flesh. ORTHODOX: Is the Divinity of the Son then unlike the Divinity of the Father? MACEDONIAN: God forbid! ORTHODOX: If it is troubled and fears death, how can it be similar and unchanging in relation to Him who is neither troubled, nor grieved, nor amazed? MACEDONIAN: Since He had a human body, He is troubled. ORTHODOX: But a soulless body is not troubled, nor is it amazed, nor is it grieved. MACEDONIAN: But He had the Divinity in place of a soul. ORTHODOX: Did the body make the Divinity amazed, or did the Divinity make the body amazed? MACEDONIAN: Because of the body, the Divinity was amazed. ^C ORTHODOX: Was the Divinity then clouded by the body, just as the commanding faculty of our soul is? MACEDONIAN: God forbid that I should say that! ORTHODOX: Then it is necessary to grant that it was the soul that was clouded. MACEDONIAN: God forbid! ORTHODOX: How then will you listen to the angel saying to Joseph, "Take the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt; for Herod is about to seek the life of the child"—and again, "Arise, take Mary your wife, and go into the land of Israel; for they are dead who were seeking the life of the child"—and the Lord Himself says, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep," and again, "When I wish, I lay it down, and when I wish, I take it back"? MACEDONIAN: Since the Father also says, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hates," must we therefore say that the Father also has a soul? ^D ORTHODOX: First, you have brought forward a passage you did not understand. For you cannot show that it is the Father who is speaking. MACEDONIAN: But whose is the voice? ORTHODOX: It is of the Son of God, who said, "The ox knew its owner, and the donkey the manger of its lord; but Israel did not know Me, and My people did not understand." MACEDONIAN: Is this then He who says, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths My soul hates"? ORTHODOX: Certainly. For He hated them at the time when He was incarnated and established the New Covenant. MACEDONIAN: And did He have a soul when He was seen by Isaiah? ORTHODOX: Just as He did not have bodily hands and feet, nor even bodily garments before the incarnation, when He said, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and on My clothing they cast lots," but the

future events He was foretelling. So also, speaking regarding the soul, He said, "My soul hateth ^A."

Maced. Let us grant that this is the voice of the Son. But does not the Son also speak when He says, "Behold My servant, My beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased; I will put My Spirit upon him"?

Orth. It is confessed that the Father speaks here, not the Son. Yet the Father does not speak thus as if He possessed a soul; rather, He calls every holy soul His own soul. Therefore, whichever soul is well pleased in the Son, He says, "This is My soul." For just as a righteous man is called a man of God, so also a righteous soul is called the soul of God, and is such.

Maced. What, then, is "well pleased"?

Orth. The prophet Isaiah interprets "is well pleased" as "has accepted," where he writes, "Jacob My servant, I will accept him; Israel My chosen, My soul has accepted him; I have put My Spirit upon him." Therefore, whichever soul accepts this My servant ^B whom I point out to you, that is My soul.

Maced. We say that the Father spoke those things improperly. For He does not say, "In whom My soul is well pleased," because He has a soul, nor is He speaking about the soul of men, as you imagine.

Orth. Let us concede that "soul" is attributed to the Father improperly; shall we then concede that it is attributed to the Son improperly?

Maced. Yes.

Orth. But what if the Father is called a man, and if He is called Father improperly, shall we also say that the Son is called man improperly?

Maced. Where is it written that the Father is improperly called a man?

Orth. The Son Himself in the Gospels calls Him a man.

Maced. Read to me where He calls Him a man.

Orth. When He says, "A certain man made a marriage feast for his son," what kind of man does He call Him? And when He says, "A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen," what kind of man do you understand?

Maced. In the parable, the Father.

Orth. Therefore, since in the parables He calls the Father a man, and in that same parable He calls Himself, Christ, a man sent after the servants, shall we say that the Son Himself has become man improperly?

Maced. God forbid!

Orth. If, then, we hear of the "face of the Father," which the angels of the little ones behold, as it is written in the Gospels; and we also hear of the "face of the Son," which shone on the mountain, and which the minister of the High Priest struck ^C; are we to hear of them in the same sense? Or shall we name one the face of the body, and the other—improperly—the face which is the hypostasis?

Maced. It is agreed that it is attributed to the Father in one way, and to the Son in another.

Orth. Therefore, if "soul" is attributed to the Father improperly, it does not immediately follow that it is attributed to the Son improperly. This is the madness of the Manichaeans, to teach that the Son of God did not become man.

Maced. We confess that He became man, but not that He assumed a soul.

Orth. Do not say "man" alone, but also "fleshed." For if He did not take an ensouled body, He did not become man.

Maced. Why?

Orth. ^D

^A For an inanimate body, one that has not partaken of a rational soul, is not a human body. But why, like "the deaf asp that stoppeth her ears, which will not hearken to the voice of the charmer," do you so treat the words of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, saying, "Neither was his soul left in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption"? And the prophet Isaiah says: "If ye shall give your soul for sin, ye shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord wills to take away from the labor of his soul, to show him light, and to form him in understanding, to justify the just one who serves many well; and he himself shall bear their sins. Therefore he shall possess many, and divide the spoils of the strong. For the sake of which his soul was delivered unto death, and he was numbered among the transgressors, and he himself bore the sins of many, and was delivered up for their iniquities." Maced. We know that it is often said in Scripture that He had a soul; but it is spoken improperly, not truly. Orth. Are all things, therefore, that are said of Him as human—such as hearing, sight, smell, voice, taste, desire, grief, fear, mental distress, walking—spoken figuratively and not properly? Maced. Indeed, all those things just mentioned pertain to Him properly; but "soul" [is used] improperly. Orth. ^B Assuredly, the One who deemed it worthy to be united to a body compacted of bones, nerves, veins, arteries, and other members and parts in His labor, did He not have a soul? Maced. To what end did Life have need of a soul? Orth. And what need had He of flesh, He who was seen by our fathers even without flesh? Maced. He had need of flesh in order that He might be crucified. Orth. Likewise, He had need of a soul in order that He might be grieved, and distressed, and fear, and be in Hades. ^C For this is to "take the form of a servant," not in order to appear in a body merely, but also to take on the passions of servitude. Maced. He took the form of a servant when He took on flesh. Orth. Is the form of God the perfect form of God? Maced. Yes. Orth. Therefore, the form of a servant is also the perfect form of a servant. For this reason, then, there is fear, and grief, and distress, because the form of the servant is perfect. And this is that sheep which, having sought and found, He carries upon His shoulders—not as an inanimate skin, but as an ensouled living creature, allowing it to have the passions, not those of sin, but those of nature; so that it might not be thought a phantasm, and the Manichaean rave. ^D Maced. Let us grant that you speak beautifully concerning the soul, but what is the reason why you call the Son consubstantial with the Father? Orth. Because whatever reason you assign as the essence of the Father, we lay it down that this same reason is [true] of the essence of the Son. Maced. But that is not consubstantial, but similar in substance. Orth. "Similar in substance"—if I may so speak—is rustic wisdom; just as if one were to say "like-minded" instead of "one-minded," or "like-kindred" instead of "of the same-kind," or "like-glorious" instead of "of the same-glory," or "like-thinking" instead of "of the same-thought." Maced. Not so; but "similar in substance" is said of incorporeal things, while "consubstantial" is said of corporeal things. Orth. I said it was rustic wisdom: for rather

^A you ought to have said "similar in substance" of bodies, in which there is likeness, and "consubstantial" of incorporeal things, in which there is identity; for the consubstantial is the identical in substance. Maced. But things that are consubstantial have a pre-existing substance. Orth. You do not speak the truth; for Eve is consubstantial with Adam, and they do not have a pre-existing substance of humans. Maced. But they have the earth as pre-existing. Orth. But they are not consubstantial for this reason, because they are from the earth, but because they admit the same definition of substance. Maced. But I say they are consubstantial for this reason, because they are from the same substance, namely from the earth. Orth. Say then also that dogs, and snakes, and all other animals are consubstantial with humans; and not only brute animals, but also plants, and whatever else has originated from the earth. For all earthly things are called by one name, but they do not admit the same definition of substance. Maced. I am not a follower of Aristotle. Orth. Neither am I. Maced. But Aristotle says that for homonyms, the definition of the substance is different. Orth. But do you say that the definition of the substance of humans, and donkeys, and oxen, and horses, and other animals is the same? Maced. Yes. Orth. Do you therefore have the same definition of substance as the irrational animals? Maced. Yes. ^B Orth. But I, following not Aristotle but the truth itself, do not say that the definition of the substance of homonyms is the same, nor that the rational are the same as the irrational. For every heretic is compared to the senseless cattle, and is become like to them. Maced. Refrain from insults while disputing. Orth. I am not acting insultingly; but your voice has brought this conclusion.

Item against Apollinarius, from the first epistle to Cledonius of the Great Gregory the Theologian, which is like a book.

Let not these men deceive others, and let them not themselves be deceived, by acknowledging a man devoid of mind—the Lord’s humanity, as they say—or rather, our Lord and God. For we do not separate the man from the divinity, but we profess one and the same [person], who is not indeed priorly man, but God and only-begotten Son, pre-eternal, ^C pure and separate from the body and all bodily things; but at the end [he is] also man, assumed for our salvation, passible in flesh, impassible in divinity, circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in spirit, the same being earthly and heavenly, visible and intelligible, comprehensible and incomprehensible, so that through the same, [being] both man and God, the whole man who had fallen into sin might be fashioned anew.

If anyone does not acknowledge the holy Mary as Theotokos, he is outside the divinity. If anyone should say that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a conduit, and was not joined ^D within her in a divine and human manner

^A, he is likewise an atheist. If anyone says the human was fashioned, and that God subsequently entered into him, he is condemned. For this is not the generation of God, but a flight from generation. If anyone introduces two Sons, one from God and the Father, and a second from the mother, and not one and the same, he is cast out of the adoption of sons promised to those who believe rightly. For although the natures of God and man are two—just as soul and body [are two]—yet there are not two sons, nor two gods. For even here there are not two men, even if Paul did designate the inner and outer part of man in this way. And to sum the matter up briefly, the things from which the Savior is are one thing and another (since that which cannot be seen is not the same as that which falls under sight; and that which is devoid of time [is not the same] as that which is subject to time), but He is not one [person] and another: God forbid. For both are one in the union, with God having become man, and man having been deified, or however else one might name it. I say "one thing and another," conversely to what holds in the Trinity. For there, it is "one person and another," so that we may not confuse the hypostases; but not "one thing and another," for the three are one and the same as regards the divinity.

^B If anyone should say that the divinity acted within him by grace, as in a prophet, and was not joined and united to him according to essence, let him be empty of the superior energy, or rather, let him be filled with the contrary. If anyone does not worship the Crucified, let him be anathema, and let him be ranked with the deicides.

^C If anyone says that he was perfected by works, or that he was deemed worthy of adoption as a son after baptism or after the resurrection from the dead, just as those whom the Greeks [pagans] introduce as newly-enrolled [citizens], let him be anathema. For that which has a beginning, or progresses, or is brought to completion, is not God, even if it is spoken of as such on account of his gradual manifestation.

^D If anyone says that the holy flesh is now put aside, and that the divinity is bare and void of the body, and does not say that he both is and will come with the assumption, may he not see the glory of his presence. For where would the body be now, if not with that which assumed it? It has not, of course, been deposited in the sun according to the ravings of the Manichaeans, in order to be honored through dishonor; nor has it been poured into the air and dissolved, like the nature of a voice, or the flowing of a scent, or the course of a lightning flash that does not stand still. And where, too, would we place the fact that he is written to have been touched after the resurrection, or that he will one day be seen by those who pierced him? For the divinity by itself flees from the gaze of the eyes. But he will come with his body, as I maintain, [yet] of such a kind as he appeared to the disciples on the mount, or was revealed, with the divinity overcoming the flesh. Just as we say these things to ward off suspicion, so we write the others out of a zeal to correct the new error.

^A If anyone should say that the flesh descended from heaven, and not that it is from here and from us, even if it is above us, let him be anathema. For that which is written, *The second man is from heaven*; and, *As is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly*; and, *No one has ascended into heaven, except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man*; and whatever else of the same kind is said, must be perceived as being said on account of the union with the heavenly One; just as also the statement that all things were made *through Christ*, and that *Christ dwells in your hearts*, is to be understood not according to that which is seen of God, but according to that which is conceived by the mind, the natures—and thus the designations also—being mingled, as it were, and interpenetrating one another owing to the logic of their union.

^B If anyone has hoped in a man lacking a mind, he is truly a senseless person, and not worthy at all to be saved. For that which is unassumed is unhealed; but that which is united to God, this also is saved. If Adam fell only by half, that which is assumed and saved is also halved. But if he fell completely, it is united to the whole of Him who was born, and it is completely saved. Let them not, therefore, begrudge us our complete salvation, nor let them attribute to the Savior only bones, and nerves, and a painting of a man. For if the man is inanimate, this is what the Arians also say, so that they may attribute the passion to the divinity, as if the One moving the body were Himself also the one suffering. But if he is animate, yet lacking a mind, in what way is he even a man? For a man is not an irrational animal. And it is necessary that he should have the form and mask of a man, but the soul of some horse, or ox, or other animal lacking a mind. This, then, would also be that which is saved; and I would have been led astray by the Truth itself, while someone else was honored, and someone else was boasting. But if the man is endowed with a mind, and is not without a mind, let them cease from truly talking nonsense.

^C But he says, "The divinity sufficed in place of the mind." But what is that to me? For divinity with flesh alone is not man, nor is it so with the soul alone, nor with both without the mind, which ought even more to be considered the man. Therefore, keep the whole man, and add the divinity, so that you may benefit me fully and perfectly.

From the same.

^D But, you say, "It could not contain two perfect things." Not at all, if you consider the matter in a corporeal way. For a vessel capable of one measure will by no means contain two measures, nor does the place of one body contain two or more bodies. But if you consider them as intelligible and incorporeal things, observe that I myself have contained within me a soul, and reason, and a mind, and the Holy Spirit, and before me this world (that is to say, the system consisting of visible and invisible things) has contained the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For the nature of those things which fall under the intellect is such that they are mingled in an incorporeal and invisible manner, both among themselves and with bodies, since even light and many sounds are contained by one sense of hearing, and many visible things by the eyes, and odors by the sense of smell, with neither the senses being crowded by one another, or

extruded, nor the sensible objects diminished by the abundance of perception.

^A But now, in what way can the mind of a human or an angel be called perfect if compared with the divinity, so that one must give way to the other due to the presence of the greater? For neither is a radiance anything when compared to the sun, nor is a little moisture compared to a river, such that we would first clear away the small things—radiance from the house, moisture from the earth—so that the greater and more perfect things might be contained. For how will two perfect things be contained—the house containing radiance and the sun, and the earth moisture and a river—let us consider this; for it is a thing truly worthy of great care and attention. Or are they ignorant that that which is perfect relative to one thing is imperfect relative to another, as a hill compared to a mountain, and a grain of mustard seed compared to a bean or some other of the larger seeds, even if it is said to be larger than those of the same genus? And if you wish, even an angel compared to God, and a human compared to an angel? Our mind, then, is perfect, and holds the primacy, yet [only] in relation to the soul and body; it is not, however, simply perfect; it is the servant and subject of God, not a partner in the primacy, nor endowed with equal honor. For since Moses was a god to Pharaoh, but a servant of God, as it is written; and the stars illuminate the night, but are hidden by the sun, so that in the day it cannot even be recognized that they exist; and a small lamp brought near to a great bonfire is neither destroyed, nor does it shine, nor is it separated, but the whole is a bonfire, with that which is superior prevailing.

^B But, he says, our mind is condemned. What then of the flesh? Is it not also condemned? Therefore, either reject this also because of sin, or join that one [as well] for the sake of salvation. If what is worse has been assumed, so that it might be sanctified through the incarnation, shall that which is better not be assumed, so that it might be sanctified through the becoming-human? If the clay has been leavened and has become a new lump, ^C O wise men, will the image itself not be leavened, and tempered with God, made divine through the divinity? But we shall add this also: if the mind, as sinful and condemned, is utterly spurned and rejected, and for that reason the mind was omitted and the body assumed, it is surely fitting that those who sin concerning the mind should be pardoned. For the testimony of God clearly demonstrated, according to your opinion, that it cannot be healed by any means. Shall I say what is greater? You, best of men (as a sarcolatrist, if indeed I am an anthropolatrist), despise my mind for this reason, that you might bind God to flesh as if He could not be bound otherwise, and for this reason you remove the middle wall. ^D But what is my argument, that of an unphilosophical and unlearned man? The mind is joined to the mind, as to something nearer and more kindred, and through it [it is joined] to the flesh, as the divinity and the mass of flesh intervene.

Furthermore, what is their rationale for the incarnation,

let us see, ^A or rather [the reason for] the incarnation, as they themselves say. If it be that God, otherwise incomprehensible, might be contained, and might converse with men as if under a veil, by means of flesh, this is truly a clever mask for them, and a drama of hypocrisy; not to mention that He could have conversed with us in another way, just as in the burning bush and in human form previously. But if it be that He might loose the condemnation of sin by sanctifying the like with the like—as it was necessary for the sake of the flesh that was condemned to have flesh, and for the sake of the soul to have a soul—then it was certainly necessary for the sake of the mind to have a mind; one which had not only sinned in Adam, but had also been the first to suffer, as the physicians say regarding illnesses. For that which received the commandment, this also did not keep the commandment; and that which did not keep it, this also dared the transgression; and that which transgressed, this also had most need of salvation; and that which had need of salvation, this also was assumed: the mind, therefore, has been assumed.

This now stands demonstrated, even if they be unwilling, by geometric, as they say, and necessary proofs. But you do something similar, as if, when a man had hurt his eye and his foot, you treated the foot, ^B but left the eye untreated; or as if, when a painter had painted something incorrectly, you changed the painting, but passed over the painter as if he had performed his task correctly.

From the same.

But if, constrained by these arguments, they flee to the claim that it is possible for God, removing even the mind, to bring salvation to man, then surely it is possible also without the flesh, by the will alone, just as He performs and has performed all other things incorporeally. Away, then, with the flesh along with the mind, that your folly may be complete! But they are deceived by the letter, and because of this they run to the flesh, being ignorant of the custom of Scripture. We shall teach them this too. For that He is everywhere in the Scripture called "Man" and "Son of Man," what need is there to speak to those who know it?

^C But if they insist on the [text]: *The Word became flesh and dwelt among us*, and because of this they pare away the most excellent part of man, just as cobblers [pare away] the thicker parts of skins, in order that they might glue God to flesh, it is time for them to say that God is God only of flesh, but not also of souls, because it is written, *As Thou hast given Him authority over all flesh*; and, *To Thee shall all flesh come*; and, *Let all flesh bless His holy name*; which means "every man." Or, again, [that] our fathers descended into Egypt incorporeal and invisible, and only the soul of Joseph was bound by Pharaoh, because it is written: *In seventy-five souls they descended* ^D

^A into Egypt, and, *Iron passed through his soul*; a thing that cannot be bound. For those who say these things are ignorant that such matters are named by synecdoche, the whole being indicated by the part; just as the *young of the ravens call upon God*, that the avian nature might be indicated, and the Pleiades, and Hesperus, and Arcturus are mentioned instead of all the stars, and the providence concerning them.

And at the same time it was not possible for the love of God toward us to be manifested in any other way than by his remembering the flesh, and because for our sake he descended even to the meaner part. For everyone of sound mind will acknowledge that flesh is of less value than the soul. Therefore, the saying, *The Word became flesh*, seems to me to have the same force and meaning as the saying that he was also made sin and a curse; not that the Lord was changed into these things—for how could that be?—but because, through receiving these things, he bore our iniquities and carried our diseases. ^B

*From the same.*

It is necessary to know this, that Apollinarius, although he gave the name of divinity to the Holy Spirit, did not, however, preserve the power of the divinity. For to construct the Trinity from a great, and greater, and greatest [extent], as if from the radiance, and the ray, and the Sun—the Spirit, and the Son, and the Father—which is clearly written in his books, is a ladder of divinity that does not raise one to heaven, but brings one down from heaven. But we acknowledge God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; yet these are not empty names dividing disparate dignities or powers, but one and the same divinity in nature, essence, and power, just as in title. ^C

*From the second letter of the same to the same.*

For when these men discourse on divinity to their genuine disciples and those privy to their secrets, just as the Manichaeans do with those they call the elect, revealing the whole of their malady, they scarcely grant even flesh to the Savior. But when they are convicted and pressed by the common opinions regarding the assumption of humanity which Scripture presents, they acknowledge the pious words, but weave deceits regarding the sense and understanding; not indeed confessing the man [of the Savior] to be without soul, nor without reason, nor mindless, nor imperfect, but instead of soul, and reason, and mind, they introduce the divinity itself, as if only it had been tempered and coupled with the flesh, and not also our human matters and properties, even if that [humanity of his] was superior to our condition in its purity from all sin, and was the expiation of our vicious affections. ^D

In this way, therefore, they also interpret wrongly and most foolishly that saying, *But we have the mind of Christ*.

^A They do not interpret this passage in our manner—namely, that those who have purified their own mind in imitation of that mind which the Savior assumed for our sake, and who have adjusted themselves to it as far as possible, are said to have the mind of Christ—just as those who have tamed their flesh could also be said to have the flesh of Christ, and by this means have become fellow-bodies and fellow-participants of Christ; and, *As we have borne the image of the earthy, so*, he says, *we shall also bear the image of the heavenly*. In the same way, to them, the perfect man is not he who has experienced all our conditions, sin excepted, but that composition from God and flesh which is taught as a dogma. For what, they say, could be more perfect than this?

^B They also misuse and handle with cunning the term for the Incarnation, explaining this word *became man* ^C not as having come to be in man, which he had joined to himself, according to that which the Scripture says: *For he himself knew what was in man*; but they interpret and teach that it is the same as saying that he had familiar intercourse and lived with men, and they take refuge in those words: *After this he appeared on earth, and conversed with men*. But why should one contend any longer? Truly, while they remove the man and the inner image, and only cleanse that which is without us through this new mask and visible appearance, they fight so much against themselves that at one time they explain the other things in a gross and carnal way on account of the flesh (from which their second Judaism has sprung, and the thousand-year foolish pleasure in paradise, and the almost repeating the same things again after the same); and at another time they bring in an opinion rather than the reality of flesh, as if he had suffered nothing of our nature, not even those things which are free from sin; and to confirm such a dogma, they apply a certain apostolic word, neither understood nor pronounced apostolically, namely: that the Savior was made in the likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man: as if by these words a human form were not signified, but a certain deceptive appearance and opinion.

^D

By the same, from the Epistle to Nectarius.

There fell into my hands a certain booklet of Apollinarius, in which the things argued exhibit every heretical depravity. For he denies that the flesh was assumed by the Only-Begotten according to the order of our nature and according to the dispensation; but [he asserts] that that nature of flesh was in the Son from the beginning. And having wrongly interpreted a certain Gospel statement as testimony for such an absurdity, he puts it forward, saying: *For no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man*. From this he concludes that, even before he descended, the Son of man existed, and when he descended, his own flesh...

^A which he happened to have in heaven from eternity, and which was consubstantial, he brought with him. For he again cites a certain apostolic passage, wrenching it from the whole context of the body, that the second man is from heaven. Then he constructs the argument that that man who came from above does not have a mind, but that the divinity of the Only-Begotten, having filled the nature of the mind, became a part of the human compound, being the third part of the soul and body that are present in him according to human nature, while the one that is not present, but ^B fills its place, is the Word of God. And although this is terrible, that which is the most grievous and absurd of all is that he makes the Only-Begotten God himself, the judge of all, the author of life, the destroyer of death, to be mortal, and that by his own divinity he received suffering, and that during that three-day death of the body, the divinity also died along with the body, and thus was called back from death to life by the Father again.

Item: Against Apollinaris, by Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, from the discourse to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria.

Those who side with the dogmas of Apollinaris say that the Word consists of flesh, and that the Son of man is the creator of the ages, and that the Lord’s humanity is without a mind, and they make the divinity of the Son mortal.

From the same discourse.

But we have learned and believe that human nature was saved by being united to the Word through the mystery; but that the Son of God consists of flesh and lives privately in himself, we have neither learned, nor are we led by any sequence of logic to conceive this.

From the same [author], from the treatise refuting the Apollinarians.

For if Apollinaris relies on the saying: "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man," and for this reason separates him from the conjunction with the earthly man, and says that he brought humanity from heaven, he will necessarily grant that there is some man in heaven who is the father of the man who descended to us. For, he says, he is the "Son of man." But how, then, in the last days, does he become flesh and is he born ^C of the Virgin? And I pass over the very indecorous things, to which, according to the consequence, the absurdity of ^D this babbling is carried.

From the same discourse.

If the flesh is eternal, the divinity was not emptied; the Son did not exist in the form of God; he did not take the form of a servant, but what he was by nature, that is what now appeared.

From the same discourse.

If before he descended to us he had flesh in heaven, he surely had in heaven all things that are proper to flesh: hunger, thirst, sleep, weariness, sadness, tears. But what was his age when he descended to earth? For "a child," according to the...

^A voice of Isaiah, "is born to us, and a son is given to us," and he passed through every age until he died, living upon the earth. But if they say that a perfect man was born from the Virgin, how was he compressed in the mother’s womb? How, even when born, was his bulk so diminished as to be circumscribed by small limits? How did he gradually grow into a mature man? Did he resume the flesh he possessed before, or add another to himself through food? If they say the former, they will clearly show that the nourishment was superfluous; but if they concede that the Lord was a participant in nourishment, what will they say regarding the flesh left in heaven? For, as is to be expected, he left behind a great part of it, and kept for himself only as much of it as the Virgin’s womb could contain. ^B

*From the same.*

If he always had this flesh about him in heaven, and those who follow Apollinaris say that God is flesh: but all flesh withstands touch, and what withstands touch consists of matter and is composite, and what is composite is dissoluble; it is therefore necessary that he himself should have consisted of matter before descending from heaven, and that he was composed of diverse things, and naturally awaited dissolution.

*From the same oration.*

In order to prove that the Only-begotten assumed flesh before the ages, he brings forward testimonies that were spoken concerning his divinity, and attempts to apply them to his humanity, such as: ^C "Before Abraham was made, I am"; and that saying of the Precursor: "He was before me"; and that of the Apostle: "And one Lord, through whom are all things; and he himself is before all things." If, therefore, according to him, his flesh is before the ages, yet he confesses that he was born of the Virgin in the last days, then the Virgin who bore him was also before the ages, and older than the one born of her; not to mention the "last days," which would also be considered as existing before the ages.

*From the same oration.*

If he asserts that the Father is incorporeal, while the divinity of the Son consists of flesh, he will certainly call their essences diverse; but if he confesses that their nature is ^D common and the same, he will be compelled to say that the Father also consists of flesh.

*From the same oration.*

He who is truly from something is clearly, according to essence, that which the one who begat him is. But the Father is not flesh, nor will the one who is from him be flesh. For that which is born of the spirit is not called flesh, but spirit. But that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Let him, therefore, show the father of this God who consists of flesh.

*From the same oration.*

He says, furthermore, that this heavenly man is the splendor of the Father's glory, and the image of his substance.

^A If, then, the light shining from the sun has a kinship with the sun, and the image of a man declares a human substance, it follows from this reasoning that the Father also consists of flesh. For such as the glory is, such also is its radiance; and such as is the image, such is of necessity the substance. So if this be body, that also is strictly not incorporeal.

*From the same oration.* Christ, to whom the Jews objected regarding food and drink, did He partake of these or was He without partaking of them? If He did not partake, what occurred was a mere phantom; if He did partake, the body that partook was not heavenly, for this food and drink consisted of earth.

*From the same oration.* ^B If the flesh was in any way divine, it is clear that it was also immutable; but if it was mutable, it was by all means not divine. Who could endure this confused and unstable mass of heretical dogmas, which appear to them in their dreams as one thing at one time and another at another? Now they say that the flesh of the Word is divine and co-eternal, now that it is extrinsic and assumed, then that it has a relationship alien to our nature, and again that it has need of a guide and is subject to change and alteration.

*From the same oration.* If then the Word became flesh when He dwelt among us, truly the Word was not flesh before the angel brought the evangelic message to the Virgin. And he who says that ^C the man descended to us from heaven, and existed before human nature was created, and that through him the Divinity was conjoined to human nature, is a liar.

*From the same oration.* The flesh of the Lord, he says, is worshipped, in as much as it is one person and one animal with Him. O the absurdity of these arguments! Just as we say that a man consists of a rational soul and a body, so he thinks that the Lord also consists of such, receiving the Divinity in place of a soul, and the heavenly flesh instead of a body, and thus calling Him an animal.

*From the same oration.* With those, therefore, who join a soul devoid of mind to the assumed flesh, I would inquire: what kind of soul do they say the Lord has? If they answer that it is devoid ^D of reason, they will be asserting about Christ not a man, but a beast of burden; but if they say it is rational, what else do they suppose the faculty of thought to be, if not reason? Consequently, he who says it is a rational and thoughtful soul, acknowledges it as such. But thought is the movement and activity of the mind. So if the Lord has a rational soul, He certainly has it as a mindful one, differing in no way from human nature.

*From the same oration.* It is improper, he says, to think of a human mind being combined with the assumption of the Only-begotten. And he adds the cause, that the human mind is mutable. Why, then, does he concede flesh to God? For that it is mutable, not even he who invents these trifles would deny, since from youth until perfection it...

^A undergoes transitions, and so it will be proven that the Gospel is false according to him, and the preaching empty, and the faith vain. But just as when He came in the flesh He was not changed, so neither was He altered when He assumed the mind.

From the same discourse.

If he thinks that the mind was a hindrance to the assumption of divine humanity, and prefers to believe that God assumed it without a mind, then he must also judge it to be more blessed to have no mind at all.

From the same discourse.

What, then, would be found more proper to be joined to God, or more fitting: the coarse, earthy flesh, or the mind, which admits neither touch nor form?

From the same discourse.

^B If we men are that sheep which had strayed, and the Son of God is the one who finds it, since he brought back the whole, he also assumed the whole. He did not leave behind what was within it, nor did he carry away only what was on the outside, which is what the madness of Apollinaris desires. But that which was carried on the shoulders of the shepherd—this is what was applied to the Divine nature of the Lord, and it became one with Him through that assumption.

From the same discourse.

He says that the Lord appeared in the form of a servant. Now, was the servant whose form the Lord put on whole, or was he mutilated—that is to say, did he have a body and a rational soul—that is, a mind? ^C If he was missing any of these parts, let him point it out; for Adam, who sinned, did not have a soul lacking reason, nor did he take upon himself a form that was defective. But the whole, He says, was, and the whole was what was assumed. But, he says, he was not a man, for he was not consubstantial with man in terms of the mind. If he was not of the same essence, he was therefore different. But of those things whose essence is different, neither the nature is common, nor the name. Therefore, if he was something else in essence, and not a man, except insofar as he put on the species and form of a man, and he was different according to nature—it is concluded from this that those things which relate to the life and humanity assumed ^D by the Only-begotten, from his birth even until his burial and resurrection, were feigned and simulated.

From the same discourse.

He who removes what is most proper to man—that is, the mind—and points out that what remains is a beast; but a beast is not a man.

From the same discourse.

If, as Apollinaris says, the human mind had become the divine nature, then these would be of equal size and equal to one another, and there would be equality between the deity and the human mind. For that which fills the place of another is equivalent to that which is lacking. But if the mind is inferior to the deity, and it has been converted into that, then it has been changed for the worse.

^A *From the same discourse.* Death, he says, does not destroy the death of a man. But what is he asserting by this conclusion? Is it that the divinity of the Only-Begotten has died? But let them say—those who do not know what they are talking about—how Life can perish and die. *From the same discourse.* If, as Apollinarius thinks, the divinity of the Only-Begotten itself died, then with it have died, of necessity, Life, and Truth, and Justice, and Goodness, and Light, and Power, and, in a word, everything that the Son is and is called. When, therefore, these things were extinguished together with the divinity of the Son through death, there was no longer any wisdom, or power, or life, or anything else of those things which the Only-Begotten is and is called, remaining with the Father. ^B *From the same discourse.* If the Power of the Father, that is, the Son and Word, died, what other power brought the dead power back to life, that I might pass over other absurdities? *From the same discourse.* If all things which the Father has are the Son’s, he who has all things that are the Father’s has, of necessity, also His immortality. And how could Immortality die? *From the same discourse.* “As Christ died and rose again, so also do we,” says the Apostle. (cf. I Cor. xv, 20). Who are we? Are we by our own nature divine power, or flesh and blood, as it is written? What we are, therefore, by essence, that also was He who died for us, whose likeness has been set before those who are of the same kind as He, to be imitated. What is that which dies and is corrupted? Is it not that the flesh is dissolved into the earth, while the mind remains with the soul, and is not harmed in its essence by the change of the body? A proof of this is that the rich man remembers those things on earth and asks Abraham about his brothers. Now, no one would attribute to madness the fact that he takes care of his own kin and looks out for them, so that they might not suffer similar things. If, therefore, our mind remains and is unaffected and unchangeable even after death, how is it reasonable that that three-part God of Apollinarius should have undergone the death of the flesh? ^C *From the same discourse.* He says that the Son, bearing a mind, was born of the Virgin, not having become flesh in her, but having passed through her as if along some path. Behold how clearly he rejects the mystery of our salvation. We shall therefore leave this most impious expression, as being self-refuting and unacceptable to those who possess even a modicum of a pious mind, unexamined. For the foolish man thinks that everything happened in appearance. *Furthermore, against the Apollinarians, from the discourse of St. Cyril on the incarnation of the Word.* He who esteems trifles more than the truth, Apollinarius...

linaris, and placing his own idle chatter before right and pious dogmas, he says that the God Word assumed flesh, and that he used it as a kind of veil; but that he did not need a mind, for he himself instead of a mind existed for the body. But, my good sir, someone might say to him, God the Word did not even require a body, for he is in need of nothing; ^A he could have accomplished our salvation by a command alone. But he willed that we also should have some communion in the things that are set right; for which reason, having taken the nature that had sinned, and having justified it by his own labors, he delivered it from the bitter tyrants, sin, and the devil, and death, and deemed it worthy of heavenly thrones, and through that humanity which he himself assumed, he communicated liberty to the entire race. But this most wise man, considering nothing of this, judges the most vocal herald of theology, the evangelist John, to be a witness to his own folly. ^B "For the Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us." And yet he knew perfectly well that divine Scripture is accustomed in many places to name the whole from a part, and sometimes calls the whole man by the soul, and at other times denotes the whole living creature by the flesh: "For all the souls," it says, "that entered with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five." Now it is evident that the sons and grandsons of Jacob were not bodiless, but the historian demonstrated the whole by a part. And again: "The soul that sins, it shall die." But no one ever knew a soul without a body to have fallen into sin; and again, ^C "My Spirit shall not abide in these men, because they are flesh." And the prophet elsewhere says: "All flesh is grass, and all the glory of men is as the flower of grass." And the blessed David: "He remembered," he says, "that they are flesh, a spirit that goes and does not return." It is plain to everyone, surely, that these whom he reproves, or to whom he gives law, or whose nature he describes, were not inanimate.

Not only does Scripture speak thus of those who are reproved, but also of those who are most praised. A witness to this is the blessed Paul, who in the Epistle to the Galatians says: ^D "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood, but I came to the apostles who were before me." If, therefore, the term "flesh" is taken not only for carnal inclination and mortality, but also for the entire nature of man, it is evident that the saying, "The Word became flesh," does not signify merely what is visible of the living creature, but the whole man; nor does he say that any conversion of the divine substance into flesh took place, but he proclaims the assumption of the human nature by God the Word. For just as the saying, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us," does not at all hint at a change of the fountain of good things into a curse, but rather at the destruction done through him of sin, or of the curse,

^A nor does it signify any change of righteousness (for the Divine is unchangeable and immutable, as he cries through the prophet: "I am, and I do not change"), but rather the assumption of our sins: "For behold," he says, "the Lamb of God, behold, who takes away the sin of the world." So, I say, the expression, "The Word became flesh," does not speak of a change of the Deity, but of the assumption of human nature. For the evangelist, desiring to proclaim the ineffable philanthropy of God toward men, after he had taught that he who was from the beginning, and who was God, and who was with God, and who never was not, who had created all things, ^B who had drawn those things which were not into existence, who was life and the true light—he, he says, made the passions of men his own, while he was accomplishing the salvation of men. And wishing still more to show the magnitude of his benefit, he did not mention the immortal soul, but the passible, mortal, and corruptible flesh, made from clay; and by a part he declared the whole nature, as the things that follow bear witness: "For the Word," he says, "became flesh, and dwelt among us."

Title XIV

Another was he who dwelt according to the law of nature, and another was the temple. Wherefore he also said to the Jews: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The dissolution of the temple was the separation of soul and body: ^C for death is the departure of the soul from the body; therefore, the separation of the soul effects the dissolution of the temple. If, therefore, the Jews destroyed the temple by delivering it to the cross and to death—and the dissolution of the temple was the separation of the joined parts—and if God the Word raised up this thing which was dissolved, it is clear, I think, to the prudent, that it was not an inanimate, soulless thing, but a perfect man that God the Word assumed. For if instead of an immortal soul, God the Word had existed in the assumed body, he would have said to the Jews: "Destroy me, and in three days I will arise." But now, as he is teaching both the mortality of that temple ^D and the power of the indwelling Deity, he says: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." For he does not say, "I shall be destroyed by you," but "the temple assumed by me." And this very thing is destroyed, so that it may afterwards enjoy a better resurrection, that it may put off the mortal nature, that it may strip off corruption and put on incorruption, that it may destroy the power of death, that it may become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, that having loosed the pangs of corruption it may be manifested as the first-born of the dead, and through his own resurrection may herald the resurrection of all mankind.

From the same discourse.

That these things are so, the prince of the apostles bears witness in the Acts, saying that his soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. The dissolution of the temple, therefore, is

^A separation of soul and body; and again, resurrection is the return to its own flesh. If, therefore, as the leaders of the heresy say, everyone has two souls—the vital, that is, and the rational—and flesh cannot even be conceived of without the vital soul (for such a thing, he says, is called a body, not flesh), yet Peter said that not the body of the Lord, but the flesh of the Lord, did not see corruption, and that His soul was not left in Hades; then it is evident that the vital soul—how they prove this, I do not know—was present in the corrupted flesh, without which, they say, it would not even be called flesh. But the immortal and rational soul, to which the governance of the animal is entrusted, was not left in Hades, but returned to its own flesh. And they prattle in vain, calling the temple of God the Word inanimate or mindless. But we will agree with Peter, who declares that the flesh did not receive corruption, and the soul was not left in Hades, but returned and was rejoined to its own body. We also believe the Lord Himself, who says: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death.” For our rational part receives the perception of sorrow. But if the God Word existed in the place of the mind, and received the passions of the mind, then He Himself was the one who was sorrowful and afraid and ignorant and in agony, and comforted by angelic aid. But if the heirs of Apollinarian folly say this too, let them be ranked with Arius and Eunomius, the enemies of Christ. For it is right that those whose blasphemy is equal should be considered one fellowship. But let us hear the Lord saying: ^C “I have power to lay down my soul, and I have power to take it again; no one takes it from me.” For from these words we shall learn that He who lays down is one thing, and that which is laid down is another; and that God is He who lays down and takes, but the soul is that which is laid down and taken; and that God possesses the power, while the soul is placed under that power.

From the same, from the oration which he addressed to the Emperor Theodosius

There are some who, thinking that the flesh united to the Word is destitute of a rational soul, introduce the Word as having clothed Himself in flesh which has obtained only vital and sensory movement; but they attribute the entire power and energy of the mind and intelligent soul to the Only-Begotten. For they fear, I know not how, to confess that the Word was united according to nature to human flesh, which was perfected and informed by an intelligent soul. Truly, while they philosophize in this way, they utterly neglect the reason of the ancient and long-delivered faith, and, relying perversely on the ill-conceived judgment of their own will (as one accustomed to follow only human reasons and conjectures), they understand and feel otherwise than it was truly fitting. And what, I pray, is the reason for this dogma of theirs? I will say. We say that the Mediator of God and men, according to the Scriptures, is composed of the [human] nature that is common to us,

its own rationale, and from the Son who has appeared from God according to nature, that is, from the Only-Begotten. Yet we assert that a certain union, and a concurrence beyond reason, has taken place for the joining of natures that are unequal and dissimilar. We acknowledge, however, that one Christ, and Lord Jesus, and Son is named, being in the same both existing and conceived of as God and man at once. And we are accustomed to maintain the union as altogether inseparable, believing the same to be both Only-Begotten and firstborn: Only-Begotten, indeed, as the Word of God the Father, and having appeared from His substance; ^B but firstborn, inasmuch as He became man, and among many brethren. For just as there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; so also there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. For we acknowledge that He through whom are all things, the Word, is God by nature, even if He has become flesh, that is to say, man. 1 Cor. VIII, 6.

But their opinions on this matter do not by any means agree very well with ours. For they themselves also openly acknowledge one Jesus Christ, and they utterly execrate the splitting of the Emmanuel into two ^C as a matter of the utmost impiety. Yet they preach that the Word of God was united to the flesh after it had been separated and stripped of the human, rational soul; and they have discovered, as they think, a persuasive argument for this. For they say that things which come together by composition to the constitution of one perfect being are seen to be parts and to possess the character of imperfect things; for that which is perfect by itself, and as in its own nature, has no need to come to a partial composition. And therefore, they say, one must ^D cautiously avoid admitting that the temple which was united to the Word was a perfect man, lest we expose to deserved calumny that exact concept of unity which is recognized to have occurred in Christ. Furthermore, I suspect they will add this also: namely, if we say that the Emmanuel coalesced from a perfect man and the Word who is from the Father, we shall come into that great and clearly inevitable danger that, even against our will, we shall be forced to hold and profess two Christs, and likewise two sons.

Come then, what shall we answer to these things? First, that it is not right to destroy the tradition of the faith, which is so ancient and has reached us from the holy apostles themselves, on account of certain curious and superfluous arguments and disputes, nor to subject to excessive investigations those things that excel the understanding, nor to leap into the middle like judges, so as to measure everything by our own sense, with contempt for the danger, and say: "This is right, but that is otherwise." It would have been far better and truly more beneficial to entrust the way of the divine intentions to the all-wise God, and not impiously to reproach those things which are judged by Him to be good, especially since He plainly

^A says, and as it were expostulating, let us hear: "My plans are not like your plans, nor are my ways like your ways: but as the heaven is distant from the earth, so are my ways distant from your ways, and your thoughts from my thought."

But we shall not worship two, nor shall we even call them two Christs, even if we believe that the temple united to the Word is endowed with a rational soul. For just as, according to what seems good to those others, even if one were to say that He is from flesh alone, and from the Word that has appeared from God the Father, in no way would anyone persuade them, while positing the flesh ^B apart and the Only-Begotten apart, to confess a duality of Christs; so too with the humanity according to us, which is complete, according to the principle of its own nature, when we say that the Word from God is joined and united in an ineffable manner that transcends the mind, we do not conceive of a duality of sons, but one and the same, being by nature God, and having appeared from the very essence of God and the Father; but in the last times of the age having become man, and having been born of the holy and Theotokos Virgin, and being worshipped by us ourselves and by the holy angels, according to the Scriptures.

But if indeed they should say that our race needed the coming of the Only-Begotten for this purpose ^C alone, that because He wished to be seen by those on earth, and to converse with men, and to show us the way of the angelic manner of life, He underwent the economy of clothing Himself in flesh similar to us (for the Divine according to its own nature is not visible): they show clearly that they are ignorant of the purpose of the incarnation, and in no way understand the great mystery of godliness. For if the incarnation, or becoming man, has only the pretext of the Only-Begotten being seen by those on earth, and nothing else of benefit has been added to human nature, why is it not better, or rather, why, even as the wise suggest, do we not align ourselves with the opinion of the Docetae, and ourselves—stripping the Word of flesh and earthly body— ^D fable that He appeared on earth as a man? For those who have missed the truth would be convicted easily and without long labor. Or would it not be better for them to say: if the Word from God does not benefit human nature even if He has become flesh, would it not be better if He had refrained entirely from the uncleanness of the flesh, yet seemed to use an earthly body, and by this method fulfilled the purpose that had been proposed? What then would be the purpose of His coming, or what the manner of the incarnation, and for whose sake it was accomplished, if anyone should chance to ask, he shall hear from us in reply: The divine Scripture will teach you. Come then, O noble one, inquire of the holy Scriptures, and having fixed the eye of your mind very firmly upon the voices of the holy apostles, examine well what is sought. For the wise Paul, having Christ speaking within him, says: "Since the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same."

that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." ^A And moreover, in another place, speaking to us of the mode, he says, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Is it not, then, most manifest—and to no one being is it unapparent—that the Only-Begotten became as we are, that is, a perfect human being, so that he might deliver our earthly body from the corruption brought upon it, by infusing his own life into it through the economy of union; and by taking on a human soul of his own, declare it superior to sin, by imbuing it with the steadfastness and immutability of his own nature, just as wool is imbued with a dye? ^B For I think there is need of examples for those things, as they possess a great deal that is obscure; for I see the divine and transcendent mysteries only with difficulty, as in a mirror and in a riddle. But it would be not unfitting, I think, to bring this matter forward, for it carries within itself what is known, and what is more, the true reasoning. Just as therefore, since the flesh of the Word who makes all things alive has come to be, the power of corruption and death is overcome; in the same way, I think, since it has become the soul of him who has not known how to sin, it has henceforth its firm standing in all good things, immutable, and incomparably stronger than the sin that formerly tyrannized over us. For Christ the Lord is the first and only man on earth who "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." ^C And as the root and first-fruits, placed for all those being reshaped in the Spirit into newness of life, he transmits both the incorruption of the body and the security of the Godhead, firmly established as by participation and by grace, to the whole of the human race. And knowing this, the divine Paul writes: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." For he called the image of the earthy the propensity toward sin, and the death that is cast upon us from that source; but the image of the heavenly, that is, of Christ, he called the steadfastness unto holiness, and the recovery and renewal from death and corruption into incorruption and life.

We assert, therefore, that the Word of God was united wholly to our whole human nature. For one ought not to think that while neglecting the principal part of us, that is, the soul, he would have wished to bestow the sufferings of his sojourn only upon the flesh. But he beautifully accomplished the sacrament of the dispensation through both parts: by the flesh ^D

as if through an instrument, [he experienced] the works of the flesh and physical infirmities, and whatever is far from blame; and by his own soul, through human and blameless sufferings. For he is said to have hungered, to have endured the toils of long journeys, and fears, and terrors, and sadness, and anguish, and finally, even death upon the cross. For, with no one compelling him, he laid down his own soul for our sake, so that he might hold dominion over both the dead and the living. And indeed ^A he paid out his own flesh, beyond all controversy, as the price of liberation for the flesh of all, a gift truly of equivalent value; and he exhibited his soul as a just price for the souls of all the dead, even though he had taken up again the life that he had laid down (for he was life according to nature as God). Hence the divine Peter: "Men and brethren," he says, "let it be permitted to speak freely to you concerning the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne, seeing this before, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was he left in hell, nor did his flesh see corruption." For it is not lawful to say that the flesh united to the Word could ever have been corrupted, or that that divine soul could be detained ^B within the gates of hell. For, as the divine Peter says, his soul was not left in hell. Nor indeed shall we say that that Nature which can neither be comprehended by the mind nor in any way be seized by death—that is, the divinity of the Only-Begotten—emerged from those subterranean caverns; since it would be worthy of no wonder if the Word of God, relying upon the strength and efficacy of his divinity, had not remained among the dead, when he is admirably present everywhere and fills all things. For the Deity is superior to every place, to every limitation, and to every measurable magnitude, and cannot be captured or comprehended by anything.

But it must seem wonderful, and to none of existing things surprising, that the body, which by its own nature was subject to decay and death, returned again to life: for that was the property of the immortal Word. So, too, ^C the soul, which had been joined and united to him, descended to the dead, and using divine virtue and power, revealed itself to the spirits imprisoned there. And therefore he said to those confined there by bonds: "Come forth," and to those who were covered by darkness: "Be revealed." And it seems to me that the great Peter also says something similar concerning the Word of God and the soul that was joined to him according to the dispensational union: "For it is better, if the will of God should so wish, that those doing good should suffer than those doing evil: because even Christ once died for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God; being put to death indeed in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in which [spirit] he went and preached even to the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient." ^D For neither, I suppose, would they say that the divinity of the Only-Begotten descended to the dead naked and by itself, and preached to the spirits there, being altogether invisible.

^A Indeed, it certainly does not fall under the eyes, and is more excellent than to be perceived by anyone. Nor must it be conceded that it was transformed into an apparent species of a soul: for the fiction of that external appearance must be altogether rejected. But just as the Only-Begotten, while He was with those still in their bodies, conversed in the body; so also, having the soul united to Him, endowed with mind and reason, He preached to the spirits who were held in Hades.

And the mode of the incarnation is indeed subtle and truly ineffable, such that it exceeds the narrow limits of our thoughts in many respects. Wherefore it behooves us to ponder this again and again: for just as it is not free from danger to inquire too curiously into things that are not human; so it seems to be of extreme madness ^B to attempt to subject things that exceed the keenness of our mind to the scales of human judgment, or to strive for the knowledge of things which can in no way be comprehended by our intelligence. Do you not know that this profound mystery, and one that is higher than all human sense, is honored by us through faith, remote from every curious investigation? Wherefore, leaving that foolish question, "How can these things be?" to Nicodemus and those like him, let us without any hesitation accept the oracles of the Holy Spirit, and have faith in Christ Himself speaking about Himself: "Amen, amen I say to you, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen." Let all trifling then depart, and spiritless myth, and false opinion, and the deception of artfully adorned words; for we do not admit anything ^C that is suited to corrupt, even if our adversaries should strike us with highly practiced and very sharp arguments. For this divine sacrament of ours is not in the persuasive words of human wisdom; but in the demonstration of the Spirit.

The Only-Begotten, therefore, who is God and Lord of all according to the Scriptures, appeared to us; for He was seen on earth, and shone upon those who were in darkness, having become man, not in appearance—far be it! For it is madness, indeed, even to think or say this—nor was He brought into flesh by way of a mere passing or change; for the Word of God is always unchangeable, existing in the same way and ^D manner. Nor did He have an existence coeval with the flesh; for He is the Creator of the ages. Nor, again, as a word without substance, nor as a bare word that came to be in a man; for He who calls the things that are not into existence and being, necessarily pre-exists; for He is Life, proceeding from the Life of God the Father, being and being understood according to His own hypostasis. But neither did He put on flesh that was devoid of a rational soul; for He was truly born of a woman, and became man, He who is living and existing, and the co-eternal God the Word with God the Father, having taken the form of a servant; and as He is perfect in divinity, so is He also perfect in humanity; not composed of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ and Lord and Son, but of

two perfect natures, I mean humanity and divinity, wondrously bound into one and the same. ^B

From the same, from his discourse to the Empresses.

"Now my soul is troubled. And what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy Son." And in another place again: "And He began to be sorrowful and very heavy," and said: "My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death." And again: "And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Those who follow the opinion of Apollinarius and subscribe to his views—they who contend that the temple united to the Word was inanimate and destitute of reason—what, I ask, can they answer when they read that the holy evangelists have committed such things to writing concerning the Savior of us all, Christ? For of whose sorrow, I ask, or of all those things which imply fear, could the supreme and divine nature of the Word be capable? It is greater than to be affected in any part by such things, or to be moved at all by any human perturbations. But indeed, into a body devoid of sense and intellect, neither a sense of sorrow nor suffering can fall; nor could it conceive any annoyance or any grief whatsoever from the provision of impending troubles; whereas such things, while the things present are being considered and those yet to come are weighed by the mind, are what a soul possessed of reason and intelligence is wont to suffer: a fact which all, I suppose, admit. How then does Emmanuel say: "Now my soul is troubled"? And how did He begin to be sorrowful and very heavy? Or what kind of spirit, in general, did He commend into the hands of God and the Father, if this is entirely alien to the divinity, and not merely of an inanimate flesh? It is clear, therefore, that the Only-Begotten became man, having taken not an inanimate and mindless body, but one rather enlivened by a rational soul, and possessed of it perfectly according to the reason proper to it. And just as He makes all things of His own body His own, so also [does He make His own] the things of the soul. For it was necessary that He should be seen in every act, both carnal and psychic, having become [man] for our sake. ^C We ourselves are also composed of a rational soul and a body. And just as He economically permitted His own flesh to suffer at times what is proper to it, so again He permitted the soul also to suffer its own proper affections; and He preserved the measure of the emptying everywhere, although He is God by nature, and above every creature. He commends His own spirit, that is, the soul united to Him, to God and the Father, so that through this he might again heap a new benefit upon us. For of old, the souls of men, when stripped of their bodies, were cast down into the vaults beneath the earth, filling up the treasuries of death. But since Christ commended His own Spirit to the Father, He has renewed this path for us. For we shall walk not whither any soul went to Hades, but rather we shall follow; and according to

our own souls committed to Him as to a faithful Creator, we shall live in good hope for as long as it takes for Christ to recall everyone at last to life. ^C

From the same, from his discourse on the humanity assumed by the Word.

These things refute the foolishness of Apollinarius, who says that God the Word dwells in the assumed flesh in place of a mind. For if the nature that was assumed did not possess a human mind, it was God who struggled against the devil, and God who bore away the victory. But if God had conquered, I myself would have reaped no benefit from the victory, as I would have contributed nothing to it, nor would I have tasted any joy from it, since I would be rejoicing in another’s trophies; but the devil would have boasted, and exulted, and been greatly puffed up and proud, as one who had wrestled with God, and had been defeated by God. For it would be a great thing for him even to be defeated by God. ^D

From the same discourse.

Sinners would have an excuse if God the Word had not assumed a mind, on the grounds that it was weak. For if there was no human mind in the assumption, but God was acting in place of the mind in those things that pertain to the mind, then it was God who hungered in the body, God who thirsted, and grew weary, and slept, and was sorrowful, and was afraid, and endured all other human sufferings. But if it was God who wrestled and won, I am deprived of the victory, and God is the one who has fully accomplished all righteousness. Those who say this, firstly, attribute no small infirmity to God the Word, if, as they assert, He was not able, when a human mind was assumed, to make man righteous. Secondly, they open a door of excuse to all who sin and transgress the divine laws. For they might reasonably say to the God of all: "We have not committed sins that are unpardonable, O Master, nor things worthy of punishment, having received a mind to guide us that is weak and unable to keep Your laws. But You Yourself, O Master, having arrived in flesh, took our flesh, but rejected and refused to take the mind, as one that hinders the acquisition of virtue and easily admits the deception of sin, and You became the mind for the flesh, and in this way You accomplished righteousness, and in this way You conquered sin. For You are God, doing what seems good by Your will, and fashioning things by Your beckoning. But we, having a human mind—which You did not wish to assume—necessarily fall under sin, being unable to follow in Your footsteps. For what is a human mind compared to the power and wisdom and light and righteousness and life of God, and the other activities of Your essence, which shine forth from Your nature like rays and flashes of light?" These things those who choose to be slaves to sin could rightly say, if in truth God the Word took a man devoid of a mind, and in this way devised the means of being without sin.

^A From the same oration. But let us for the present leave aside the nonsense of those men; let us return to the subject proposed and demonstrate that the economy of our Savior was necessary. Since the whole man had been deceived, and the whole had come under sin, and the mind had admitted of deception even before the body—for the mind's prior assent sketches out sin, and then the body gives it form through action—it is reasonable that the Lord Christ, wishing to raise up the fallen nature, holds out his hand to all, raising up the which lay there: the flesh, I say, and the mind, which had been made in the image of the Creator. For it [the mind] is invisible, unseeable, inaccessible, and incomprehensible, and does not even have knowledge of itself; furthermore, it is uncircumscribed. ^B If we look at the phantasy of thoughts, it is endowed with leadership and power, adorned with arts and sciences, a kind of small and new creator, or, to speak more truly, an imitator of the Creator, queen of the visible creation, or rather an image of the King, gathering tribute from the earth, from the sea, from the air, from the sun and moon and stars, from heaven and clouds, from sheep and oxen and other cattle; nay, rather, harvesting the fruits of them all, for it is for its sake that visible things were made, since God is in no need of these. ^C Therefore, he did not treat with contempt such a precious part that stood in need of healing, nor did he assume humanity—corrupted by disease and old age and enslaved to death—in such a way that he overlooked its rational and immortal part, which was made in his own image, especially since it was, as they say, in an ill state; but he renewed the whole nature that had become old. For would he have made part of it new, while leaving that part which had become worn out and corrupted without remedy? Especially since this part was most precious, endowed with immortality, adorned with the use of reason, and belonging to the order of intelligible beings. For it would have been most absurd to assume and join to himself a body of clay and dust, subject to the passions, ^D and to seat it at the right hand of the Majesty, while the mind—invisible, immortal, the ruler of the living creature, made in the divine image, endowed with incorruptibility, the charioteer and governor and musician of the body, through whom human nature is not irrational but abounds in wisdom, arts, and every skill—to be cast down and not share in the same honor as the body. Yet it is for its sake that the body became a rational creature; it is for its sake that laws and prophecies were given; through it are the contests, the struggles, the victories, the proclamations, and the crowns; through it the body, struggling along with it, obtains as the reward of its labors the kingdom of heaven; and because of it the very coming of our Savior has occurred, and the mystery of the economy has been accomplished. For it was not for things devoid of soul and mind, nor for stupid beasts of burden or inanimate stones, that he underwent his saving sufferings, but for men possessing an immortal soul dwelling within them.

Item against the Apollinarians, by Damascenus. Chap. 82.

^ASince we call Christ perfect God and perfect man, we must by all means attribute to him everything that is natural to both the Father and the Mother; for he became man in order that he might conquer that which had been conquered. For he who is able to do all things was not unable to deliver man from the tyranny of the tyrant by his own omnipotent authority and power; but there would have been a pretext for accusation against the tyrant if, after he had conquered man, he had been forcibly despoiled by God. Therefore, the compassionate and man-loving God, wishing to show the fallen one as a victor, becomes man, recalling like to like.

^BThat man is a rational and intelligent animal, no one will deny; how then did he become man if he took on soul-less flesh or a soul devoid of mind? For this is not what is meant by man. And what would we have gained from his incarnation, if that which suffered first were not saved, nor renewed and strengthened by union with the Godhead? For that which is not assumed is not healed. He therefore assumes the whole man, and his most beautiful part, which had fallen into sickness, so that he might grant salvation to the whole; for a mind that is unintelligent and deprived of knowledge would not be a mind at all. For if it were inactive and motionless, it would be entirely non-existent.

The God-Word, therefore, wishing to renew that which is according to the image, became man. And what is that which is according to the image, if not the mind? Did he then pass over the better part and assume the worse? For the mind is on the boundary between God and flesh, of the latter as an inhabitant, but of God as an image. The mind, therefore, is joined to the mind, and the mind mediates between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh; for if the Lord had assumed a soul devoid of mind, he would have assumed the soul of a brute.

^CFor if the evangelist said that the Word became flesh, it must be known that in holy Scripture the soul is sometimes called man, as in the text: "With seventy-five souls Jacob went down into Egypt," and sometimes flesh, as in the text: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." The Lord, therefore, did not become unintelligent flesh or inanimate flesh, but man. For he himself says: "Why do you strike me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?" He assumed, therefore, flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul, which, just as it held sway over the flesh, so in its turn was subject to the Godhead of the Word, and was governed by it. ^D

EUTHYMII ZIGABENI

Ex scholiis Anastasii.

^A The Apollinarists calumniate both blessed Athanasius and Julius, the pontiff of Rome. Athanasius, indeed, because he wrote to the Emperor Jovian that the Son is one, and not two natures—the one to be worshipped and the other not to be worshipped—but that there is one nature of God the Word that assumed flesh, and is to be worshipped with that very flesh. Julius of Rome, however, because he wrote to Dionysius the bishop in this manner: "For it is necessary that those who assert there are two natures, should worship the one, but not worship the other." If we are baptized into the death of the Lord, we confess there is one nature of the impassible divinity and of the passible humanity. Timotheus, the disciple of Polemon, who had Polemon the disciple of Apollinarius as his teacher, wrote an index of the books of Apollinarius, and he recorded these epistles in the aforementioned index, in which these two statements that were mentioned are found, and from this he confessed them to be by Apollinarius.

Title XV. Against the Nestorians, from Saint Cyril's interpretation of the holy Creed.

Those who divide Christ into two sons, and dare to say that God the Word ^B joined to himself a man from the seed of David, and bestowed upon him glory and honor and the dignity of adoption, and so prepared him that he might endure the cross, and die, and revive, and ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of the Father, so that he might be worshipped by every created thing, receiving honors in the name of God; these people first establish two sons, then they foolishly invert the power of the mystery. For Christ did not become God from men, but being God, the Word became flesh, that is, man. He is said to have emptied himself, because before the emptying he had fullness in his own nature, as he is conceived of as God. For he did not ascend into fullness from being empty. ^C He emptied himself from divine sublimities and ineffable glory; he was not a humble and abject man who was exalted and endowed with glory. He took the form of a servant, as one who was free; he did not ascend to the glory of liberty as a servant.

A collection of the same from the evangelical and apostolic sayings, by which it is proven that Christ is God, and not a mere man. This collection is taken with selection from the Thesaurus.

"Cum autem natus esset, Jesus in Bethlehem Judææ." Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, who is from the root of Jesse. But God and the Father speaks concerning him through one of the prophets: "And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not little among the thousands of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth he that is to be prince in Israel. And his goings out are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." ^D How, therefore, is he who was born in Bethlehem of Judaea said to have his goings out, that is, the beginning of his existence, from the beginning of eternity, especially when he was born in the final times of the age? God, therefore, is surely Christ.

^A And the most ancient thing is fitting for him. He was God, who for our sake willed to undergo the birth of flesh from a woman.

And behold, a leper coming up worshipped him, saying: Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And stretching forth his hand, he touched him, saying: I will, be thou made clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. ^B To be able to act in a manner worthy of God is not proper to a human being, but would rather belong to the nature that alone is beyond all things. But Christ acts in this way; he is not, therefore, a mere man like us, but rather God in human form. You will understand this also in the case of Peter’s mother-in-law, and [when he acts] rebuking the winds, and the sea, and the waters. Whence also the divine disciples, seeing the sea and the winds subject to him, marvelled, saying: What man is this? For it was not the work of a mere man to be able to do such things. Therefore, Christ is at once God and man.

Then he says to his disciples: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he may send forth labourers into his harvest. And having called together his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease, and all manner of sickness. ^C He knows that the God of all things is the Lord of the harvest. For the intelligible threshing floor is his, that is to say, humanity; his also is the harvest. But behold, having commanded them to pray to the Lord of the harvest, he immediately demonstrated that he himself was that Lord, by sending out the labourers, that is to say, the holy apostles, to whom he gave power also against unclean spirits, as God. For it is not within the measures of humanity to bestow the operation of the Holy Spirit. But Christ has bestowed it. How, then, is he not by nature and in truth God? For the Word was made flesh.

Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. ^D Many of the saints have been called to the glory of martyrdom, and have attained perfection through torments and death, having confessed Christ. Are they, therefore, crowned because they asserted and said that he was a common man, or rather because they honoured him in their confessions as God? But this is evident. For those who denied this both lost the glory of martyrdom and shall find themselves denied by Christ in the day of judgment. How, therefore, is he not God, he who crowns with the glory of martyrdom those who confess that he is truly God?

Have you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are without blame? But I tell you that there is here one greater than the temple. If the priests who break the Sabbath are without blame, because they minister to God, how is the ministry of Christ not greater than those things which are done in the temple? But it is clear. For they indeed, in the law, and in the shadow, and in the pattern of heavenly things, offered worship.

^A But the divine disciples, sitting by and ministering to Christ, had even greater glory. And if the worship which is offered to Christ is superior to the worship in the Law, how would he not be truly understood as God?

"But if I," he says, "cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they themselves shall be your judges." If the disciples cured those vexed by demons in the name of Christ—for they used to proclaim, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth"—why should he not be understood as the true God? For no human glory or power would have been sufficient to overcome Satan.

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned with fire, so shall it be in the consummation of the age. The Son of man shall send his ^B angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them who work iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire." It is written concerning God: "Praise the Lord, all his angels." For no one is the angel of an angel; rather, all things are God's. How then did he say concerning the Son of man: "He shall send his angels"? Because he is God, as the Lord, having angels and heavenly spirits who serve him. "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels." Behold, he again calls the heavenly spirits his angels, even though he is spoken of as the Son of man.

"But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Would Christ sit ^C as a man of the kind we are, with all the angels standing by him, and thus judge the world? And then, what meaning would there be in that? For it is written, that there is "one lawgiver and judge." Therefore, Christ is God, who has a throne and angels standing by, and judges the world in justice.

"And the high priest," he says, "said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Amen I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming in the clouds of heaven." How does the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God? Is it not because, although the Word of God became the Son of man, he is yet what he was? Therefore he sits with the Begetter, and is seen shining with the dignities of divinity, even ^D though he has become flesh.

"And Jesus crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept, arose." If Christ were an ordinary man, why was there such a great disturbance at his death?

^A For the sun drew in its rays and poured forth darkness in the daytime, and the earth, seeing its own Master being treated with outrage by the Jews, was rent asunder. Furthermore, Hades released the souls of the saints. Who was it that brought these things to pass? Was it not God? For God was in the flesh, and the creation, in its own way, sympathized with Him as He was being insulted.

"And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people for the remission of their sins." For he went before Christ, and became His forerunner, and proclaimed that His ways were to be prepared. And he prophesied the word concerning Him, turning them as to God, who has the power to make those righteous who were living in sins. How then is Christ not God?

^B "And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, answered and said unto them, Why think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," He said to the paralytic, "I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go into thine house." If God alone delivers us from trespasses, a thing which is not appropriate for any other besides Him, and yet Christ bestows this very thing with authority befitting God, how could He not be God? And He is called the Son of man because, as far as the flesh is concerned, the Word, existing as God, was born of a woman.

^C "But Jesus did not trust Himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man." It is written concerning God: "Who fashioneth their hearts individually." And He Himself says in a certain place, "Shall any be hidden from Me?" But if He has all known, and knows what is in man, is He not God, who searches hearts and reins?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." He says that the Son goes to the Father, even though the Son is God by nature, and He Himself fills all things. ^D He goes, therefore, as a man. For He was taken up into heaven. But as God, He promises to fulfill the requests of those who approach Him, if they offer their prayers in His name. To whom, then, would it be fitting to fulfill the prayers of the saints, and to grant what is requested, except to Him who alone is God by nature and in truth?

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." If, therefore, the knowledge of Jesus Christ is of necessity yoked to the knowledge of God alone and follows upon it, and is joined to it, and

^A confers this eternal life, how is it not evident to all that Christ is the true God? For the Word became flesh, and remained the Word.

And having said this, he breathed upon them and said to them: "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." All that has been done is worthy of God and reasonable in every respect. For, first of all, it is not a human act to breathe upon the apostles and give the Spirit; and then, it is a great thing, and superior to any created power, to grant such authority, that they might retain the sins of whomsoever they wished, and forgive those whom they wished to receive such release. For this reason, he gives the Spirit through a bodily breathing, because his flesh is not alien to the Word, but his very own. And although it was a human act to breathe with the flesh, yet it was a divine work, and full of authority, to declare those whom he himself had judged worthy to be partakers of the Spirit.

"When you shall have lifted up the Son of Man, then you shall know that I am." The inspired John, explaining for us the causes of the Jewish madness which they leveled against Christ, says: "For this reason, the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his own Father, making himself equal to God." In another place, he represents them also speaking impiously: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God." ^C Therefore, they have made the faith concerning him unacceptable, thinking him to be a mere man, and being ignorant that, being God the Word, he took upon himself the seed of Abraham, and has shared in blood and flesh similarly to us, yet did not cease to be God. For he is immutable by nature, and is always the same. "When therefore you shall have lifted up," he says, "the Son of Man, then you shall know that I am." For he was crucified humanly, but he rose again divinely; and it has been believed through the resurrection that he is indeed both God and the true Son of God. And if he is believed by us not to have raised someone else, but rather to have risen himself, it is necessary in every way, because of the economy, to understand that the body which suffered death was his own, so that he himself might be said to have risen, even though by nature he is immortal as God. For by proclaiming the death and confessing the resurrection of one Christ and Son, we are justified through faith. Therefore, the same person, being one and the only Christ Jesus, is said to have died humanly according to the flesh, but to have risen as Life.

"Yet a little while I am with you, and I go to him who sent me." For where is the Word of God not existing, if he fills all things by the nature of his divinity? How then is he sent by the Father? Or how does he go to him? He is sent, indeed, humanly, so far as the mode of the mission pertains to it, that he might preach the gospel of liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind. And he goes to the Father

^A and to God—not in a like manner, but as having returned to the heavens in the body, that he might show himself for our sake in the presence of God and the Father, as it is written. But if, even regarding the Word himself, the phrase “to be sent” should be taken, let no one be vexed. For it is the manner of the divinely inspired Scripture sometimes to use such expressions, and not thereby to subject the divine and transcendent nature to places and circumscriptions; for it knows it to be incorporeal and far more excellent than to be contained or enclosed by any spatial dimensions. Rather, it strives to explain through human terms those things that surpass our mind, just as our Savior says that he will send to us the Paraclete, even though the Holy Spirit fills all things—for, "The Spirit of the Lord," he says, "fills the world."

^B "All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him." Since no one knows the Son except the Father alone, how do some reject the testimony of the Father? For he pointed out his own Son in the Jordan, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." But it was not the bare Word he showed to us, but one united with flesh. And he did not say: "In this is my Son," but: "This is he," who is, to be sure, united with flesh. One, therefore, is the Son and Lord.

^C "And his mother said: Son, why have you done so to us? Behold, your father and I were seeking you, sorrowing. And he said to them: Why is it that you were seeking me? Did you not know that I must be in the things of my Father?" See then how he calls his own "Father" him who is in the heavens. But if he were merely a man, and understood as such, in accordance with us, how was he not rather bound to say: "Did you not know that I must be in the things of the Father of all?" But he claims him as his own; for he alone was born of him according to nature, in a divine manner.

^D "He was the true light, which illuminates every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did not know him. He came into his own things, and his own did not receive him." Having sufficiently discoursed upon divine matters, and having said that every man coming into the world is illuminated and sanctified by the true light, and that the world was made through him, he says that "into his own things" he came. But the Only-Begotten, having become man, came as to his own people, and before all others, to those from the blood of Israel. Since, therefore, he himself is the true light, through whom all things exist, and he himself is the one who came into his own things clothed in flesh, how is it not necessary to confess one and the same Christ and Son?

John bears witness concerning him, and cries out, saying: "This is he of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has become before me, because he was before me." Because out of his fullness

we have all received. ^A John says concerning Christ, that "He who comes after me," that is, he who appeared after me, whom he himself manifestly proclaimed, "has become before me," that is, he surpassed me in glory. For he was also primarily in existence as God. How, then, could he who came after him be before him in time? Because the Word was God, and he became flesh, having precedence in that he is the Word, but being second in point of flesh. But if all the saints have partaken from his fullness, and only the divine is full, as he says through the voice of Isaiah, it is fitting for him, and him alone, to make others partakers from his own personal fullness; and Christ has performed this. Thus, there is one Son and Lord, the Word from God who became flesh, who is himself at once God and man.

"No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man." How did the Son of man descend from heaven, even though his holy flesh was born of a woman? But the body of the Word who descended from heaven was his own, which also became the Son of man. Therefore, Christ and the Son are one. Thus, things pertaining to the Word became proper to the flesh, and things pertaining to the flesh became proper to the Word, apart from sin alone.

The children having branches of palms went out to meet him, and cried out: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel." How, then, does the holy Scripture say that he would come in the name of the Lord? For if ^B he were considered privately as a man born of the holy Virgin, to whom the Word of God was not joined by hypostatic union, that name of lordship would be common to him, just as it is to us, and there would be nothing great in Christ. But if, as is true, he was foretold as the Lord who would come—which is also the case—and the Only-begotten came into this world not without flesh, he is clearly one in nature, and is truly Lord, and Christ, and Son.

"Many other signs indeed Jesus did in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." Emmanuel, who was born of the holy Virgin, has been named Jesus by the voice of the angel. Since, therefore, he is himself—and not another—the Son of God, and he who believes has eternal life in his name, are not those insane who distinguish and say that there is one Son, and another who is the Word from God, and another who is from the holy Virgin? ^D For the Evangelist declares in these words, and very clearly indeed, that he knows and proclaims one and only one Jesus Christ out of both, that is, the Word from God the Father who has shared in blood and flesh just as we have, as it is written.

"This is the beginning of signs Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and he manifested his

^A glory, and his disciples believed in him." Since the sign had taken place, and his glory had been manifested, in whom did his disciples believe? Was it merely as in a holy man? But they had followed him even before the sign, having admired him as holy. Yet, by the sign, they beheld that he possessed power and authority beyond that of a human. Therefore, they believed in him as in God. It should be known that many of the saints have performed many wondrous things and were admired, yet not one person believed in them. The same conclusion is to be drawn from these words: "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did."

Christ raised the son of the nobleman from the dead, saying to him, "Go, your son lives." ^B Thereupon his whole house believed. Did the nobleman, then, believe in him as in a man because of such great and god-befitting authority, or did he recognize him as God by nature, one who revives whom he wills and with authority, and by a word alone? It is clear that he believed in him as in God.

"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews." Someone might perhaps say that it is inappropriate for the divine and supreme nature of the Word to worship. Furthermore, if Christ is truly God, why does he set himself in the number of those who worship? What do we say to this? If we believed that the Word from God the Father had come into this world in his naked divinity, ^C indeed, for him to worship would be highly inappropriate; rather, he is worshipped than that he should worship another. But since, having taken the form of a servant and not despising the measure of the human nature that worships, he was declared the Son of Man, the act of worship belongs to the dispensation and is more in keeping with the measures of the emptying than with the nature of the Word, if considered by itself. For how is salvation from the Jews? No one would say that, insofar as he is understood as the Word, he is from the Jews, but rather, insofar as he is their brother, who consists of flesh and blood, for the reason that he took on the seed of Abraham. Christ is therefore one, even if he is said to worship by reason of his humanity, although he is worshipped by all creation as God.

"As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, and he who eats me, he also will live ^D because of me." I would gladly ask those who divide the one Christ into two: who, then, is the one sent by God and Father, and who lives because of him, and thus exists as the giver of life? If he is naked, and the Word from him by himself, how is he eaten by us, so that we may live because of him? For the Divine is incorporeal by nature. If, however, they say that the one sent is only, and by himself, a man, how then is he a life-giver, since he lives because of the Father? And yet, how is it that not all of us who are on earth living, as

I said, and being through the Father, form this sole body of one man, and rather possess the same energy as the others, if we all, as I said, are and live through the Father? What then do we say to these things? The Word of God took the role of an Apostle, having appeared in human form. For he was sent to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. ^B Yet he lives through the Father, for he has been begotten from the living Father. For it was necessary—it was necessary entirely and by all means—that the Son, who has sprung forth from the living God and Father, should by nature be life. And since he made the body taken from the holy Virgin his own, he rendered it life-giving, and very reasonably so; for it is the body of the life that quickens all things. Therefore, one should not divide the one Son and Christ and Lord into two sons, since it is the same one who is life, as from life and the living Father, and a life-giver also through his own body, as God who has become like us and has taken on human nature.

The Jews once approached Christ, saying: If you are the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them: I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness concerning me. ^C What then do those who foolishly divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into a duality of sons and into two Christs say even to this? About whom were the Jews speaking: If you are the Christ, tell us plainly? And who is the one saying, The works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness concerning me? Whose own Father do we say God is? Is it of the one who is understood by himself and specifically to be from a woman, or of the Only-begotten? Although the ability to accomplish the works of the Godhead would not befit a human nature. Whence? Far from it. Since, then, Christ was fulfilling the works of the Father, he would not be thought of as a mere man, but rather as God, remaining in flesh and blood what he was. For having himself in this way, he will perform works equal to his own Begetter, and no one who is of sound mind would fault the understanding of the mystery.

And John testified, saying: I saw the Spirit descending as a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him. And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water, he said to me: Upon whomsoever you see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God. ^D The Father has shown one, and the blessed Evangelist speaks about one: This is the Son of God. Concerning whom, then, will that which has been said be understood? If indeed concerning the own and only-begotten Son, that is, the Word who is from the Father, how does he receive the Spirit, while being God by nature, and possess the Spirit

as his own? But if ^A they say that the man from the woman—that is, considered separately and individually—stood in need of the participation of the Spirit, how is he himself the one who baptizes in him, although it is solely appropriate to the highest nature to be able also to declare those sharing in the Spirit who approach him? But if the same one receives and gives, it is evident that according to the terms of the dispensation with the flesh, he is also by nature, and truly is, God. For he receives as a man, not so much for himself but rather reconciling the Spirit to the human nature through himself and first in himself; but he gives as God, from his own nature infusing it into those worthy to receive. ^B I could have brought forward many other similar things having the same force to the point under discussion, but since it is tedious to repeat the same thing, we say that from the explanation of one passage, prudent men will easily understand other similar passages. Therefore, as often as Christ is said to happen to be sanctified, or to receive the Spirit, it is fitting to understand it in this very way.

Concerning that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. If you acknowledge Christ to be one, they say, the Word of God incarnate—that is, having assumed man—how did he ignore the day of the end? We say, therefore, that to be ignorant of the mysteries that are in God is neither unusual, ^C nor is it otherwise unbecoming to the creature. For who has known the mind of the Lord? according to that which is written. And if the Son is said to be made a little lower than the angels, clearly in that he became man, although he is by nature beyond all creation in a divine way, what is the wonder if he is said to be ignorant, together with the angels, of the mystery that is in God, although he is his wisdom and power? Then how would the wisdom of God and the Father be ignorant of the things hidden in him? And if the Spirit is said to search all things, even the depths of God, and the Spirit is Christ’s, how would he himself be ignorant of what his Spirit knows precisely? Therefore, even if he is said to be ignorant humanly, he knows divinely. ^D And so, while asking, "Where have you laid Lazarus?" as if it were permitted to him not to know according to the human, he acted divinely, raising him from the dead. Bestowing, therefore, the human things upon the dispensation which occurred in the flesh, we shall piously preserve the things worthy of God for the Word who was begotten of God and who became as we are.

We are baptized as into one name of the Father, so also into one name of the Son, and into his death, and into the Holy Spirit. Let those then who divide the one Christ and Son into two sons, and who claim that a man was conjoined to God according only to an equality of dignity, or of authority, while the natures are divided, teach us: into whose death were we baptized? If indeed specifically into that of the Word of God, we shall actively charge the incorruptible nature with corruption, and we shall determine death for the life that is by nature. But if they should say, into that of the one from the woman individually [* Matth. XXIV, 36. * Rom. XI, 34.]

^A or considered by himself, how do they not say openly that he would be entirely and altogether one who is ranked with the Father and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps even the true Sonship of the Word who was begotten from God would be pushed aside. But see clearly, you who have an awakened mind, the absurdity of such thoughts. It is necessary, therefore, to understand that the Word of God, having become as we are, was born and suffered in the flesh voluntarily. For we were baptized into his own death in such a way that, as there is one Son, he is, regarding the nature of the divinity, impassible, but regarding the flesh, passible.

"The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, instructing us, that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age, ^B waiting for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works." What is this grace, and of whose God is it that appeared to us, and is said to be salvation to all men? Is it not that God and Lord who, as is clearly evident from the words of the blessed David, appeared to us, and we received his coming from heaven, and he himself is our God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might release us from every sin and present us to himself as genuine worshippers? Who then is the one who says that Immanuel is not true God, when the blessed Paul speaks of him as the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, ^C preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory." Who was manifested in the flesh? Is it not clearly and altogether the Word from God the Father? For thus the mystery of godliness will be great. And he was seen by angels as he ascended into the heavens; he was preached among the Gentiles through the holy apostles; and he was believed on in the world. And we in no way say any longer that he is simply a man such as we are, but God who was born in the flesh like us, and was received up in glory, so that he might hear the God and Father saying: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies ^D your footstool."

From the Epistle to the Romans. "Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen." Behold, he clearly says the gospel and the preaching are of Jesus Christ, and that the mystery concerning him had been concealed and kept silent.

^A for ages eternal, but has now been revealed into the obedience of faith. For the nations have been turned to Christ, having been rescued from false worship, and having acknowledged him as God by nature and in truth. And if God was known to be wise through Jesus Christ, how is the mystery of Christ not great? But if, according to you, he is understood merely as a man, and not rather as God having become man, the mystery of Christ is no longer wise.

God, having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For the flesh and the spirit are admittedly in conflict with one another, that is, the natural mind and the movement of the pleasures innate in us, and the power of the life according to the Spirit; and even if the divine law leads us to be obliged to choose what is good, the desire of the flesh drags us toward the opposite. But now, in Christ, that which was opposing has been undone, and the law of sin has been weakened, but that of the Spirit has prevailed. For what reason? For God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he might condemn sin in the flesh ^B. Then how is the incarnation of the Word not most necessary? For sin is condemned in this way in our flesh. But if the Word did not become flesh, our affairs would have remained uncorrected, and we would be servants to the law of sin in the flesh, with no one having nullified it in us. Therefore, we say that the union of the Word with the flesh according to subsistence is necessary, and not merely one according to persons, or according to will, or simple contact, as some assert.

What then will they say to these things? "If God is for us, who is against us?" Since he did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with him grant us all things? Does he not grant the specific Son? It is clear that the God and Father gave him who is of his own essence for us. But he suffered according to the flesh, and not by the nature of his divinity. Therefore, the body that suffered was his own, so that he himself, who does not know how to suffer, might also be understood to have suffered by way of dispensation. Therefore, to divide the one into two is impious. For the Father is no longer found to have given his own Son for us, if Christ is a divided man ^C.

"Who is he that justifies? Who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, rather who also rose from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." If Christ justifies by faith, and it is God who justifies, then Christ is God in truth. And if he who died and rose again is at the right hand of God and sits with the Father, it is therefore the body of the Word that is his own. For he sits with the Father together with the flesh that was assumed, as Son by nature, even if the Word has become flesh.

From the same oration.

^B “But in him,” he says, “dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Behold, he clearly knows another Christ separately, namely the man born of a woman, in whom the Word, or rather all the fullness of the Godhead, dwelt as another beside him. To such things we reply that the one inspired by the Spirit does not know two Christs, but proclaims one, just as he also does one Father. For, he says, to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through ^C him. In whom, then, did all the fullness of the Godhead dwell bodily? If you say that this was done privately and individually in the nature of the Word of God, you will be holding an opinion no less foolish than if you were to contend that the Only-Begotten himself dwelt within himself. But those who believe that the Word became flesh, not through change or alteration, but rather that he tabernacled among us and made the body united to him in truth—having a rational soul—his own temple, rightly say that the divine Paul, wishing to signify to us the true indwelling, or rather union, of the Word in the holy flesh, says that in him dwelled all the fullness of the Godhead, not preferentially or relatively, or as though by a gift ^D of grace, but “bodily,” which is to say, substantially—just as if one were to say that his own spirit dwells in a man, which is not different from him. Yet often in the case of a single person, the mode of speech and figure introduces a double person to us, and yet in no way does it harm the truth; as, for example, if it were said concerning God by the God-inspired Scripture, “He who fashions the spirit…

of man within him.” For to whom is it not clear that the spirit that is fashioned in man is not something different from the man himself? The blessed David also says in a certain place, “I communed with mine own heart, and my spirit made diligent search.” ^A Who is it that communes with his own heart, and [who is] the spirit that searches? One must not, therefore, be too critical of the figures of speech in words, but should look rather to the natures of the things themselves, and be well guided by them to arrive at the truth.

From the Epistle to the Galatians

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Since the legal letter pronounces him cursed who is in transgression and sin, He who knows no sin, that is to say Christ, submitted to the judgment, enduring an unjust sentence, and bearing those things which are fitting for the cursed and execrable, so that, because the price of the salvation of all is extensive, dying for all He might pay the penalties owed for the contumacy ^B of all, and with His own blood purchase the world under heaven. Therefore, He would not have been a sufficient ransom for all if He were simply a man. But if He is understood as God having become man, and having suffered in His own flesh, the entire sum of created things is small in comparison to Him, and the death of one flesh, which was proper to the Word born of God the Father, was sufficient for the ransom of the world under heaven.

From the Epistle to the Hebrews

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” And again, “And when He bringeth the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship Him.” And again, “Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” For to which of the angels said He at any time, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” Since, ^C therefore, the Emmanuel was born the firstborn among many brethren, then He says He was brought into the world. For God was outside of created things by His own nature. Then, too, He says He was made lower than the angels, although He inherited a more excellent name than they. For "angel" is a term of service, and indicates a modest measure to us. For they are sent for ministry on account of those who are to inherit salvation. ^D But the [term] "Son" would signify the essential and natural existence from the Father, because we believe that the birth has truly occurred. How, then, has He who is worshipped by them been made lower than the angels?

^A The proposal is clear. For He attained to the measures of human nature, and having taken a body [that is] by nature subject to death, and having made it His own, He suffered in it voluntarily, and is crowned with the highest glory on account of His suffering; as one who, through it, has rendered death ineffectual and corruption powerless, inasmuch as He Himself is incorruption and life. When, therefore, he names Jesus, and says that He has been made lower than the angels, we do not understand this as referring to a man considered separately and individually, but we understand [that it refers to] the Only-Begotten Himself, who for the sake of the plan of salvation, yields for a time the pre-eminence to the holy angels, because He who is inferior in their superior status has truly become man. But the things pertaining to the superior status [belonging] to the holy angels are that they are also without flesh and are superior to dying, whereas the Son, through His voluntary emptying (κένωσις), became subject to these things. But He who was made a little lower than the angels on account of the measure of humanity ^B is worshipped by them in the superiority of His divinity, and is seated upon thrones around which they stand, always praising Him and calling Him Lord of powers.

From the same [author], from the book which consists of question and answer.

For God and Father has indeed begotten the Son from Himself, by a single generation; yet He was pleased to restore the human race in Him through the incarnation, or "becoming man," which had to be brought to pass completely and in every way, namely by way of a birth from a woman, so that through the likeness which the Word born from God has with us, the law of sin ^C might be condemned in the members of the flesh, and death, in the likeness of the death of Him who knew no death, might be made void. "For if we have been planted together," he says, "in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." Therefore, He who exists and is eternally, was necessarily born according to the flesh, transferring our condition into Himself, so that the offspring of the flesh—that is, we who are corruptible and perishing—might remain in Him, since He has made what is ours His own, and His own ours. For He who was rich became poor for our sakes, that we through His poverty might become rich. But those who assert that the Word from God ^D did not Himself become flesh, or did not undergo the birth according to the flesh from a woman, destroy the [divine] plan. For if He, who was rich, did not become poor, lowering Himself to our condition out of philanthropy, neither have we become partakers of His riches, but we still remain in our poverty, and are held fast by the curse, death, and sin. For the very fact that the Word became flesh brings about the dissolution and negation of those things which, through the curse and judgment, had befallen human nature. Therefore, if they tear up the root of our salvation and dig up the foundation of our hope, where will what follows still stand? For if the Word was not made flesh, as I have said, the empire of death has not been shaken, nor has sin been destroyed in any way; and we are still liable to the transgressions of the first parent, that is, Adam, possessing no return to the better—that is, I mean, through our Savior of all, Christ.

^B

B. I understand what you mean.

A. But who, then, would be thought of by us as having become a partaker of blood and flesh in the same way as we are, yet as being different from us by nature? For no one would say it is appropriate for a man to become a partaker of humanity. For how could that which someone has taken by nature be thought of as something other than what it is? Does my argument not seem entirely consistent to you?

B. Entirely so.

A. Observe also in another way how impious and dissonant it is to attempt to abolish the birth of the Word of God from a woman according to the flesh. For by what manner would He quicken His own body, if it were not His own, He who is Life? How does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from every sin, if it belongs to an ordinary man who is himself subject to sin? How did God the Father send His Son, made of a woman, made under the law? How did He condemn sin in the flesh? For it was not of an ordinary man, whose nature was held together with us under the tyranny and yoke of sin, to condemn sin. But since it became the body of Him who knows no sin, for this very reason, and with perfect justice, it cast off the tyranny of sin, and being endowed with the properties of the Word—to whom it is ineffably united—it became holy and life-giving, and full of divine power and operation. We, however, have been transformed in Christ as in the first-fruits, so as to be superior to both corruption and sin. And it is true that, according to the voice of the blessed Paul, ^C just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man, which is to say, Christ. But the heavenly man is understood to be Christ, not as having brought the flesh down to us from above and from heaven, but because being the Word of God, He descended from the heavens, and undergoing the likeness to us—that is, enduring birth according to the flesh from a woman—He remained what He was, that is to say, from on high and from the heavens, and above all as God, even with the flesh. Thus, indeed, the divine John says somewhere concerning Him: “He that cometh from above is above all.” For He remained Lord of all, even though by way of the incarnation He received the form of a servant, and on account of these things the mystery of Christ is truly wondrous. And indeed, God the Father said somewhere to the Jews through one of the prophets: “Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which you will by no means believe, though one were to declare it to you.” For there is a danger that the mystery of Christ might not be believed, on account of the greatness of the miracle. God was made man like unto us, He who is above every creature; the invisible became visible according to the flesh; He who is from heaven and from on high took on the form of those made of dust; the untouchable is tangible; He who is free by His own nature took the form of a servant; He who blesses the creation became accursed, and was numbered among the lawless, ^D and in the appearing of death He became

life. For it was not of anyone else, but rather of the Son who is such by nature, that the body which tasted death consisted. ^A Do you have anything to object to these things, as if they were not well-reasoned, or rather spoken by us?

B. By no means.

A. Consider this also, then, in addition to these.

B. What is it, I pray?

A. Christ said somewhere to those who strive to do away with the resurrection of the dead: ^B "Have you not read that He who made man in the beginning, made them male and female?" And the divine Paul also writes: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." How, then, did the only-begotten Word of God, when He willed to undergo our likeness, not permit the laws of human nature to prevail for the constitution, that is to say, the generation of His own flesh? For He did not deign to receive it from a marriage bed or wedding, but from a holy Virgin who knew no man, having conceived by the Spirit, the power of God having overshadowed her, as it is written. Therefore, since God does not spurn marriage, but rather honors it with His blessing, why the Word, being God, should have willed to make the Virgin, who conceived by the Spirit, the mother of His own flesh, I cannot easily say. And yet, how would the reason for this not be clear to everyone who has considered it? For the Son descended, or rather became man, to reconstruct our nature as if in Himself, and first ^C into a certain holy and admirable birth and life. But He Himself also became the first to be born of the Holy Spirit (according to the flesh, I mean), so that, by this way as it were, the grace might pass on to us also, that we, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God through the Spirit, might obtain our intellectual regeneration and a spiritual conformity with Him who is by nature and truly the Son, and call God Father, and thus remain incorruptible, no longer having that former one as father, that is to say, Adam, in whom we have also decayed. And so Christ says, on one hand, "Do not call your father on earth; for one is your Father who is in heaven," and on the other hand, ^D as one who for this reason has descended to our level, that He might bring us to His own and God-befitting dignity: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." For He who is in the heavens is His Father by nature, but our God. Since He who is by nature and truly the Son became man similar to us, He says He had God as His own, according to the reason befitting His emptying. But He has also given His own Father to us; for it is written: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name." But if we ignorantly deny that the Word of God, who is from the Father and has precedence in all things, was born among us according to the

^B partaker, according to the voice of the most wise Paul, to whom then do we become conformed, and as whom are we named the children of God through the Spirit? Whose is the first-fruits of the matter that we have received, or who at all sends the dignity unto us? They would say, as I suppose, even they themselves: The Word who became man. But how will this be true, unless the Word Himself became flesh—that is, man—having made the human body His own in an inseparable union, so that it might be understood as His, and not that of another? For in this way He will also send unto us the grace of adoption, and we too shall become children of the Spirit, for the human nature has attained this in Him, in the first place. And it seems to me that the divine Paul, having thought of something of this kind within himself, spoke somewhere very rightly: ^C "As we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." And he called the first man from the earth earthly, but the second from heaven, celestial. "But such as the earthly, such also are the earthly; and such as the heavenly, such also are the heavenly." For we are earthly, as the curse of corruption from the earthly Adam has fallen upon us, through which also the law of sin has crept into the members of the flesh. But we have become heavenly, as we have received the gift in Christ. For God, being God by nature and from God and from above, has descended into our circumstances in an unusual and strange way, having become born according to the flesh of the Spirit, so that we also, following Him, might remain holy and incorruptible, as from a beginning and a second root, that is to say, with grace descending upon us.

B. You have spoken most excellently. A. But in what way do they also say that He was made like unto His brethren in all things, that is, unto us? Or who at all could be understood to have undergone our likeness, if He were not different by nature and not like us in these respects? For it is necessary that that which is made like to some things must be different from them, and not like them, but rather of a different species, or of a different nature. Since, therefore, the Only-Begotten is unlike us by nature, He is said to have been made like unto us, having become man. And this could happen, and very rightly and solely so, in the generation ^D that is ours, even if it occurred in Him miraculously. For it was God who was being incarnated. Let it be confessed, however, that the body united to Him was endowed with an intellectual soul. For God, being the Word, did not leave behind the better part of us, that is, the soul, and take care of the earthly body alone, but wisely provided for both soul and body. That the Word has not been altered in becoming man like ourselves, the Spirit-bearer has indicated, saying: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today the same, and forever." And he makes yesterday significant of the past time, today of the present, and for the present and future [he uses the term "forever"].

^A something they had devised, thinking they understood "yesterday and today" literally, arguing and saying: "If He is 'yesterday and today,' how could He also be 'unto the ages'?" We will shift the force of the question to the opposite position. For if the Word is "unto the ages," how could He take "yesterday and today" upon Himself, if Christ is one and is not divided, according to the voice of the divine Paul? For it is written of the blessed Baptist that "the next day he sees Jesus coming toward him and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said: After me comes a man who has been before me, for He was before me, and I did not know Him, but that He might be manifested to Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." You understand, then, how, by calling Him a man and naming Him the Lamb, he says that it is not another who takes away the sin of the world, and he has attributed to Him this great and truly unique and God-befitting dignity. But he says that He was made before him, even though He was born later, namely, as regards the time in which He was born according to the flesh. For although Emmanuel, insofar as He is man, was born after him, ^B yet He was before all ages as God. Therefore, it is characteristic of the same one to be both recent by reason of human nature and eternal by reason of divine nature. For this reason, also, the most excellent Peter, not looking at the Word naked and without flesh, but as He had appeared in flesh and blood, issued a manifest and most certain profession of faith in Him, saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." To whom Christ responded: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but My Father who is in the heavens." But if the mystery is not deep in truth, and God was not in the flesh—if He were but a man, as they wish, who attained sonship by grace—how could he have needed such a great teacher of the mystery, so that no mortal revealed it to the disciple, but he was taught it by the Father Himself? Moreover, the divine disciples, when they once beheld Him walking on the sea, were astonished at the miracle and issued a profession of their faith, saying: "Truly You are the Son of God." But if He is a bastard and falsely named, and it is adventitious to Him to be ^C Son, let Him convict them of lying, ^D since they even confirmed it with an oath. For they added the word "truly," asserting Him to be the Son of God and Father.

B. You have spoken excellently.

A. How, moreover, does the Son of Man have His own angels and shine in the glory of His Father with His angels? And again: "And the Son of Man will send His angels." But if they still withhold faith and are incredulous, when they see Him adorned with divine glory and with such splendid and surpassing dignities, they shall hear Him Himself saying: "If you do not believe Me, believe My works." And again: "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me."

credatis mihi. Sed si facio, et si mihi non creditis, operibus meis credite. » For ^A when the excellence of ineffable glory is perceived in a man, not as something alien to him or conferred by grace, but as his own, how can it fail to persuade us that He who was in the form similar to ours was indeed God and the true Son of the God who is over all?

^B They say that He was speaking of His own angels, and that He performed miracles because the Word dwelt in Him, bestowing upon Him His own glory, power, and efficacy. For it is written: « Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all those who were oppressed by the devil. » So, being anointed with power and the Spirit, He was a worker of miracles.

The all-wise Paul says: « But for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him. » How then, tell me, are all things through a man? And besides, why is He immediately ranked with the Father as Son, with no one intervening? Furthermore, where shall we place the Only-Begotten if we exalt this man into His place, and that, too, as they claim, while being motivated by Him and honored for Him? Does not their reasoning shoot wide of the mark? Does it not stray from the goal, and being utterly mistaken regarding the truth, deserve to be met with laughter?

^C They say that the Word of God is called man, and this in a certain way. For just as the man who was assumed by Him was born in Bethlehem of Judea, yet was called a Nazarene because he dwelt in Nazareth, so too did the Word of God become ^D called man because He dwelt in a man.

O you empty prattlers, people of debased mind, capable of nothing but babbling! Awake, you who are drunk with your own wine; let someone cry out to those who hold the opposite view: Why do you force the truth, and by subverting the power of divine dogmas, wander off the royal road? For it would seem that, according to your view, the Word did not become flesh, but rather a "man-dweller," and it would have been more consistent to call Him "human" rather than "man," just as he who inhabited Nazareth is called a Nazarene, and not "Nazareth." And yet, I think, nothing prevents—if they believe their own foolishly invented theory to be sound—the Father and also the Holy Spirit from being called man along with the Son. For the fullness of the holy and consubstantial Trinity dwells in us through the Spirit. Indeed, Paul says: « Do you not know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? » And Christ Himself also says: « If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. » But the Father is in no sense called man, nor is the Holy Spirit, even though They have dwelt in us. But these men mock the incarnation.

twisting the Church's doctrines, which are so upright and worthy of being heard, into what is jarring. But let our discourse proceed again, leaving aside their ravings. For if they claim that because the Word was in Him, He was the performer of miracles, they perhaps set Him down as one of the holy prophets; for He worked signs through the hand of the holy men. If they say that the Son is among these, they are ^B reducing Him to prophetic or, as it were, apostolic measures.

B. For is it not said, they say, that He is a prophet and an apostle? You would not deny it.

A. Moses said to those from the blood of Israel: « A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up to you from your brethren, like me. » And the divine Paul writes: « Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Jesus. » Just as, being by nature God and truly Lord, He took the form of a servant, and having been born in it, and having taken on what is ours, so too He gave the spirit of prophecy, and ^C designated apostles, and created high priests, and was made in all things like the brethren; for thus was He called a prophet, and an apostle, and a high priest.

B. But even if they were to grant that He is a prophet, they do not say that He was made one of the prophets, but rather that He far exceeds them. For they received a grace measured according to what seemed good to God, and one which came to them in time; but He was full of the Deity even from His very birth; for God the Word being present was with Him.

A. Therefore, in the quantity of grace and the duration of time, Christ has surpassed the holy prophets who came before Him; and this is the excellence in Him. But the purpose is to inquire whether He was a prophet at all, not whether He was greater or lesser, or superior, so that in the fact of His being a prophet—and in not exceeding our condition—His humility might consist, even if one were to conceive of this as having existed from the beginning, just as, indeed, the marvelous Baptist, concerning whom the blessed angel says: « And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit yet from his mother’s womb. » ^D Then how is it that one was a servant, while the Other is adorned with Lordly dignity? And concerning Himself, the blessed John says: « He who is of the earth speaks of the earth; » but concerning Immanuel: « He who comes from above is above all. »

B. And yet they might perhaps say that the Word begotten from God the Father is indeed from above and above all; but they fear to attribute human things to Him, lest perchance He should be wronged by them and brought down to what is ignoble. For this reason they contend that He assumed a man and joined him to Himself, upon whom the properties of man might fall and of whom they might be spoken; so that the nature of the Word Himself might receive no detriment at all. They say, therefore, that Christ was sanctified by the Father.

^A For it is written: “And John bears witness, saying: I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and It remained upon Him, and I knew Him not: but He who sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me: Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” And Paul also wrote concerning Him: “For both He who sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one.” ^B Now, the Word, being God and holy by nature, was in no way sanctified. It remains, therefore, to say that the man whom He assumed by conjunction was sanctified.

^A But how does He who is baptized, and who received the manifest descent of the Spirit, baptize in the Holy Spirit, and fulfill those things which are proper and fitting only to the divine nature? For He is the bestower of sanctification, and showing this as His own proper good, the Word who became man breathed upon the holy apostles, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” And how did the divine Baptist, most clearly pointing out the One who was sanctified, testify that this is the Son of God, singularly and solely? For it was necessary for this teacher of the world, if he knew of another than the true Son, to explain the truth of the matter and to say clearly: “This is he who, by reason of conjunction with Him who is by nature and truly the Son, has become a son by benefit and grace.” But he said nothing of the kind; rather, knowing that it is one and the same Person, both the Word from God the Father and from the seed of David according to the flesh, he says that He was sanctified inasmuch as He is man, but that He sanctifies inasmuch as He is understood to be God. For there was in Him, as I have said, both this and that. If, then, He has not become man, if He has not been born of a woman according to the flesh, we take away from Him the properties of human nature. But if it is true that He emptied Himself and became like us, why do they strip away those things through which He underwent emptying, most ignorantly destroying the artifice of the dispensation in the flesh?

^B If, therefore, it is said that He also received glory, and became Lord, and was exalted by the Father, and was declared king, will you ascribe these things also to the Divine Word, and will you not entirely and absolutely injure His glory?

^A That the nature of the Word of God is filled with all true glory and kingdom and dominion, how could anyone doubt; and that the divine dignity is fittingly attributed to Him? But when He became man, to whom all things were given and added, by that reason, although He abounds in all things and imparts to all from His own fullness, He receives in a human manner, taking to Himself our poverty; and what was paradoxical—new and strange in Christ—was lordship in the form of a servant; in human

^A tenuity, divine glory, and royal dignity; in servitude, as far as the condition of human nature is concerned; and humility endowed with the highest eminence. For the Only-Begotten became man, not that He might remain in the state of emptying Himself, but that, while receiving its properties along with it, He might nonetheless be understood to be God by nature, and might illuminate human nature in Himself, declaring it to be a participant in sacred and divine dignities. For even the saints, ^B even after He became man, call the Son the glory of God and the Father, and indeed also King, and furthermore Lord. For Isaiah speaks thus: "As when a man gleans an olive tree, so shall they glean them, and when the vintage is finished, these will cry out with a voice; but they that are left upon the earth shall rejoice together with the glory of the Lord." And again, another of the saints says: "Be enlightened, O Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee. For behold, darkness and thick cloud shall cover the earth, but the Lord shall appear upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee." And James, His disciple, says: "My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory with respect of persons." And Peter, the inspired one, says: "If ye be reproached in Christ, blessed are ye; for that which is the honor of the glory and power of God, and His Spirit, shall rest upon you." ^C

These things suffice for us already. But I would have you tell me how that which is written concerning Christ ought to be understood: "Who in the days of His flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and having been heard for His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered; and being made perfect, He became unto all them that obey Him the author of eternal salvation." I will also add to these words that which was said: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" For they say that these things are alien to God the Word, and I myself would judge them to be far inferior to His dignity and excellence.

^D A. I myself also easily understand that these things would not be fitting for the Word begotten of God the Father, if we remove that which pertains to the administration in the flesh, and do not accept that which Scripture testifies, namely that He truly became flesh. But since we hold this firmly, and because doubt in this matter is joined with impiety, let us consider the mystery of the incarnation as much as possible. Accordingly, the Word from God appeared to us in the form of our likeness, helping human nature in innumerable ways and demonstrating for us in the best manner the path that leads to all that is excellent. It was therefore necessary for us to say, when temptation assails those who are in danger because of their love for God, what sort of persons those should be who desire to establish a praiseworthy and distinguished manner of life and conduct: whether to slothful

^A inclinations and prone to delights, relaxing the soul into cheerfulness, or rather to be seen intent upon prayers and weeping before the Savior, and eagerly seeking His help, and possessing a courageous mind, even if He should will that we also suffer. It was furthermore useful to know what is the end of obedience, and what and how great a reward is proposed for endurance. Christ therefore has become for us the figure and example of all these things, which the divine Peter also confirms, saying: "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (I Pet. ii, 20, 21).

Hence, not as one stripped [of divinity] and destitute of the modes of self-emptying, ^B but in the days of His flesh, the Word of God became an example to us; and so it was permissible for Him, without blame, to use human characteristics, and to offer prayers, and to pour forth tears, and to expect and implore the Savior, and to learn obedience, though He was the Son. For the Spirit-bearing Apostle, astonished in a way by the magnitude of the mystery, set it down that He who exists by nature and in truth as Son, and is resplendent with the glories of the Godhead, humbled Himself, so as not to refuse to undergo the smallness of human poverty. But as I said, the pattern of this event was directed toward us for our great benefit, so that we might be taught not to deflect into another way when the time demands fortitude; which anyone may understand well from this. For Christ says in one place: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." ^C And in another place: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." And what can the necessity of following Him signify, other than that we must bravely resist temptations, with the invocation of divine help, not negligently and remissly, but rather using most fervent prayers, and shedding from our eyes the tear that comes from piety?

From the Scholia of the same on Union

Union is accomplished in many ways. For some who are divided in affection and purpose, and at variance with one another, are said to be united through friendly reconciliation, having put aside their discord. We also say that things are united which are glued together, or brought together in other ways—by composition, or mixing, or tempering. ^D When, therefore, we speak of the Word of God as being united to our nature, the mode of this union is seen to be superior to all human thought. For it was not brought about by any of the aforementioned modes; it is an altogether hidden union, and known to none of those who exist, except to God alone, to whom all things are known.

^A And it is no wonder if we are defeated by such thoughts, when, in investigating how the things concerning ourselves subsist, we confess that the perception of it is beyond the capacity of the mind that is in us. For who is there who can express the third way in which we conceive the soul of man to be joined to its own body? But if it is necessary for those who are accustomed to understanding small things, or even those who are able to understand, to make conjectures about things so subtle and transcending both mind and speech, we say that it is fitting to conceive of the union of Emmanuel as being of such a kind as one might consider the soul of man to have with its own body. ^B For the soul reckons all things that are the body's to be its own, although by its own nature it is devoid of the passions of the body, those that are natural and those that accrue from without. For the body is moved towards natural desires, and the indwelling soul perceives this because of the union; yet it participates in them in no way, though it considers the result of the desire to be its own pleasure. And if by chance the body should be struck by iron or be tormented, it feels pain, indeed, because its body is suffering, but it itself, in its own nature, suffers absolutely no torment from the things inflicted. Yet we say that there is also a union over and above this, which was brought about in Emmanuel: for it was necessary for the soul united to its own body to suffer with it, so that, in fearing the passions, it might submit its neck to God. However, it is impious to say that God the Word suffered along with the passions; for the Divine is impassible and far removed from our affairs; but he was united to flesh possessing a rational soul, and while that soul was suffering, He remained impassible, ^C while He was indeed conscious of the things happening to it, and as God He would render the infirmities of the flesh void, yet He would treat them as His own body; thus He is also said to have hungered and to have been wearied and to have suffered for us.

Therefore, the union of the Word, which was brought about with humanity, may not irrationally be compared to the things concerning us. For just as the body is of a different nature from the soul, yet one man is effected and named from both, so too from the perfect substance of God the Word, and from the humanity possessing perfection according to its own rationale, there is one Christ, the same existing in identity as God at once and man. ^D And the Word makes the things of His own flesh His own, as I said, because it is His body and not another's; and He makes common, as if with His own flesh, the operations of His divine majesty, so that He might even be able to quicken the dead and heal those in infirmities.

But if it is fitting to demonstrate the union by examples from the divinely inspired Scripture, as if through a figure, come, let us speak as we are able. The blessed Isaiah says: "There was sent to me one of the Seraphim; and in his hand he had a coal, which he took with tongs from the altar, and he came to me, and touched my lips, and said to me: Behold it has touched thy lips, and it shall take away"

^A iniquities, and shall purge thy sins. But we say that the coal provides for us a type and image of the Word who became man; which, if it should touch our lips—that is, if we should confess the faith in Him—then it also makes us pure from all sin and frees us from ancient charges.

Furthermore, one may see, as in an image, in the coal that the Word of God was united to humanity, yet without having cast aside what He was, but rather having transformed what was assumed—that is, what was united—into His own glory and operation. For just as fire, having associated with wood and having penetrated it, takes hold of it and, while not causing it to cease being wood, yet changes it into the appearance and power of fire and exerts all its own force upon it, and is henceforth reckoned as one with it; so too you should understand regarding Christ. For God, having been ineffably united to humanity, has preserved it as that which we say it is, yet He also remained what He was; but having been united once, He is reckoned as one with it, making its own things His own, and having also bestowed upon it the operation of His own nature.

From the same, from the discourse On the One Son.

We who believe in Christ are under a curse, unless He is by nature and truly the Son, who was born of the Virgin. For the prophet Isaiah says ^B somewhere concerning Him: And there shall be the root of Jesse, and he that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope. How then are we, who have placed our hope in Him, not "under a curse," if the prophet Jeremiah is true, who says: Cursed is he that hath hope in man? But we who have believed in Christ have not placed our hopes in a man: for He is God, one and alone, and truly the Son, both before flesh and after He assumed flesh, He who, being mounted upon a foal, as the evangelists have delivered, ^C ascended into Jerusalem. Then children met Him, praising Him, and they were saying: Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. The Pharisees were indignant at this voice of the children. For because He, being visible as a man, was receiving the hymnal praise befitting God, the bold ones approached, almost protesting and saying: Dost Thou not hear what these say? For they were saying, as it were: Being man, dost Thou endure being glorified and hymned as God? And what did Christ say in response to these things? Was He angry at the children? Did He reject the glory? Did He rebuke those who were praising Him as God? ^D Not at all. Rather, He said to those who were fond of accusing: Have you not read, that Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings Thou hast perfected praise? Amen I say to you, if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out. You see how He who sat upon the foal, being by flesh the Son of David, acknowledged the glory of His divinity as His own by His testimony? He was not, therefore, a partaker of a glory not His own, as they say, nor different from the Word of God, as

as one who is Son exclusively; for this reason He is also called God, and Lord, and Most High ^B even by the voice of the angels. For instance, the blessed Gabriel, when announcing the birth of John and making his future ministry manifest, says to Zacharias: "Many shall rejoice at his birth, and many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." How, then, was he turning the children of Israel to the Lord their God? For he was preaching to them, saying: "After me cometh a man who has become before me, because He was before me. And I knew Him not, but He who sent me to baptize in water, He said to me: Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is He who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God." He did not say that the Son of God is with Him, or in Him, but that *this* is the Son of God.

The sixth anathema of the same.

If anyone says that the Word of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess the same to be both God and man at once, as the Word was made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema. For our Lord Jesus Christ, who is one and the only true Son of God the Father, has been made flesh, and together with His own Begetter rules over all things, and to Him every knee bows, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The seventh anathema of the same.

If any one says that Jesus is operated upon by the Word of God as a man, and that the glory of the Only-Begotten was bestowed upon Him as on one different from Him, let him be anathema. For when the blessed Gabriel was preaching the birth according to the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God to the holy Virgin, he said: "Thou shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins." ^C He is called Christ because He has been anointed humanly along with us.

From the same, from his letter to Nestorius.

For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh; nor that it was transformed into a whole man, consisting of soul and body; but rather this, that the Word, having united to Himself, according to hypostasis, flesh enlivened by a rational soul, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, has become man and has been called the Son of man, not by will alone or good pleasure, nor yet as if by the assumption of a person only; and that while the natures brought together into true unity are diverse, there is one Christ and Son from both; not as though the difference of the natures was destroyed because of the union, but rather because they have produced for us the one Lord, Jesus Christ and Son, ^D from the divinity and humanity, by an ineffable and unspeakable concurrence into unity. And in this way He is said, although having His existence before every age, and having been begotten of the Father, to have been born and

^A to have been brought forth according to the flesh from a woman; not as if His divine nature took the beginning of its existence in the holy Virgin, nor as if it stood in need, by necessity for its own sake, of a second generation after the one from the Father. For it is both foolish and ignorant to say that He who exists before all ages and is coeternal with the Father, stood in need of a second beginning of existence. But since, for our sake and for our salvation, He united to Himself the human nature according to subsistence, and came forth from a woman, in this way He is said to have been born according to the flesh. For not first was a common man born from the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him; but having been united from the very womb, He is said to have undergone a fleshly birth, as one appropriating to Himself the birth of His own flesh. In this way we say that He also suffered and rose again, not as though the Word of God suffered in His own nature, or received stripes or the piercing of nails, or other such wounds; for the Divine is impassible, because it is also incorporeal. But since His own body, which had become His own, suffered these things, He Himself is again said to have suffered for us. For the Impassible was in the suffering body. In the same way, we think also regarding the fact that He died; for the Word of God is immortal and incorruptible by nature, and is Life and Life-giver. But because again His own body, by the grace of God, as Paul says, tasted death for everyone, He is said to have suffered for us the death that was for our sake; not as having come to an experience of death, so far as His own nature is concerned (for this is madness to say or to think), but because, as I just now said, His flesh tasted death. ^B So too, His flesh having been raised, His resurrection again is spoken of; not as though He had fallen into corruption—far be it!—but because His own body has been raised again. Thus we shall confess one Christ and Lord; not worshipping a man together with the Word, lest the fancy of division be introduced through saying "the with," but worshipping one and the same, because His body is not alien to the Word, with whom He also sits at the right hand of the Father; not as if two sons were sitting together, but as one, according to the union with His own flesh. If any one objects regarding the subsistence...

Of the same, from the letter to Eulogius

for the nature of the Word is one thing, and that of the flesh is another; but he does not go on to confess the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Lord, the same, and one incarnate nature of God the Word. And after a few words: To know the difference of the natures is not to divide the one Christ into two.

From the same person's epistle to Acacius. Nestorius, therefore, takes away entirely the birth of the only-begotten Son of God according to the flesh. For he denies that He Himself was born of a woman according to the Scriptures. For he speaks thus: "I have learned from the divine Scripture that God proceeded from the Christ-bearing Virgin herself, but I have never learned that God was born from her." And in another exposition again: "In no way, therefore, does Scripture say that God was born from the Christ-bearing Virgin, but [that] Jesus Christ, the Son and Lord [was]." Now, that by saying these things he divides the one into two sons, and posits another specifically and separately as Jesus Christ and Lord, the Word begotten of God the Father, and again another separately and specifically as Son and Christ and Lord from the Virgin—who could doubt this, when he himself confesses it with a clear voice? But the brethren at Antioch ^B call the holy Virgin Theotokos, and say that there is one Son, and Christ, and Lord, perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity, inasmuch as His flesh was ensouled with a rational soul.

From the same epistle. Nestorius pretends to confess that the Word of God took on man, or flesh, but, ignorant of the power of the assumption, he names two natures, and separates them from each other in turn, placing God separately, and likewise man separately, who is joined to God only by equality of honor, or authority. For he says thus: "God is not separated from what is seen. Therefore, I do not separate the honor of that which is not separated. I separate the natures, but I unite the adoration." But the brethren at Antioch, receiving the things from which Christ is understood not in bare and solitary notions, have indeed established a difference of natures, because divinity and humanity are not the same thing in natural quality, ^C yet they assert that there is one Son, and Christ, and Lord, and one person of Him existing as one; and they do not divide by any reason the things which are joined, nor do they admit a natural division, as this introducer of wretched dogmas seemed to think. But they maintain that the statements made about the Lord are to be divided, and they say that these are to be applied, not partly to the Son who is considered separately as the Word of God, and partly again to another Son who was born of a woman; but some [are applied] to His divinity, and others again to His humanity. For the same is both God and man. And they say that others are in a way common, and look toward both divinity and humanity. For some of the statements are most appropriate to God, others on the contrary to man, and others hold themselves in a certain middle way. ^D

^A And after other things: "For they did not proceed to such a point of madness as to constitute themselves transgressors, inconsiderately building up what they had rightly pulled down. For if they approve of the opinions of Nestorius, how do they anathematize them as profane and abominable?" I believe, however, that the causes must also be explained, for which they proceeded to such subtlety of trifles. For because the defenders of the Arian impiety, wickedly peddling the truth, say that the Word of God became man, but yet that He assumed an inanimate body, so that by attributing human voices to Him, they might show to those whom they have deceived that He is inferior to the excellence of the Father, and say that He is of a different nature from Him—the Orientals, fearing lest the glory and nature of the Word of God should be diminished ^B by the things which, on account of the dispensation made in the flesh, were said in a human way, define the voices—not dividing the one Christ and Lord into two persons, as I have said, but attributing some to His divinity, and others again to His humanity, yet all of them to one.

Of the same, from the discourse on the humanity assumed by the Word: That the Virgin is the Theotokos.

They think that they are deceiving the souls of the hearers, saying that the Word of God assumed a man, and that through him He made a coming forth from the holy Virgin, and that this same man was deified by the Word of God, not understanding the mystery of piety, and making the grace of the Only-begotten, which proceeded from the counsel of the flesh assumed, to be mediocre. But we have not been so taught. We know one and the same, brethren, ^C to have been born through the holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, perfect God and man, ensouled and rational; and for this reason we call the holy Virgin Theotokos, and that the Word of God dwelt in her substantially, not in appearance, but in energy, being at once Son of God and Son of man. But indeed, we say that the voices of the humanity, and not those of the divinity, which the divine Scriptures declare to us concerning Him, converge into one person. For we know the same one sleeping on a pillow, and the same one commanding the sea and the winds with authority; the same one exhausted on His journeys, and the same one walking upon the sea by His own authority as if upon solid ^D ground. We confess, therefore, the same one to be God and the same Lord. For what is the wonder, if any man, such as we are, is said to work miracles by the power of God? But so that the divine Scriptures may show to us that the Word of God Himself emptied Himself, not in appearance but in truth, they affirm to us one and the same in the preachings of the prophets and apostles.

From the Epistle to John of Antioch.

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and body, born of the Father before the ages according to His divinity, but in the last days the

^A same for us and for our salvation [was] born of the Virgin Mary according to his humanity. For the union of the two natures has taken place; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this notion of the inconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because the God Word was made flesh and became man, and from the very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her.

From the discourse delivered to the most august ladies.

If the holy Virgin did not give birth to God incarnate according to the flesh, they must, even against their will, concede that she brought forth a common man, in nothing superior to us. But if this is the case, by what reason, I beseech you, shall every knee bow to Him, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father? How ^B do the angels, and that holy host of heavenly powers, adore Him? Have we, then, together with all of heaven, been worshipping a common man until now? God forbid; for we worship Emmanuel as the true God. But He will not be worshipped in any other way, unless we believe that He Himself, the Word of God who is worshipped by every creature, became flesh according to the Scriptures; not changed into flesh, but having taken his flesh from the holy Virgin, as I have said, and having undergone a human birth like us; in order that, having become man for our sake, He might die humanly, but rise divinely, having trampled down the power of death. For this is how it was possible for us also, in Christ, to have overcome, and having vanquished sin, and having put off corruption, to escape death, and thus to speak from the joy that is in Christ: “O death, where is thy victory? O grave, where is thy sting?” For just as in Adam we have fallen, so in Christ we have conquered; even as we were defeated in Adam, so again in Christ we have conquered.

But if Emmanuel were only a common man, how would the death of a man have brought aid to human nature? Yet not a few holy prophets have died, that renowned Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, and Samuel, and the saints who succeeded them; but the death of those men brought no help at all to the human race; whereas the death of Christ provided salvation; ^D inasmuch as He offered His own flesh for us, and by surrendering Himself to death for our sake, He delivered all from the snares of death. For one dying for all sufficed, as He who far excelled all others in dignity. For He is the Word of God the Father, and God by nature, and the body which He offered up for us as a sweet-smelling fragrance to God and the Father was His own. It is therefore impious, and most absurd, to tear into two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ. The most wise Paul also opposes them, saying: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” For if there is one Lord, then…

whom they tear into two sons, to which of them, I ask, shall we assign the glory of Lordship? Is it to the Word born of the Father? For to Him in the highest degree both the name of Lordship and the reality itself belong, and He is truly the Master of all. Then where in the world shall we place the other? For he will be excluded from being Lord, yielding to the pre-existing One, who is incomparably exalted. But shall we ascribe the glory of Lordship to the one born of a woman, as they themselves say by separating them? Then how will the Word from God the Father be Lord, if, there being one Lord according to the Scriptures, we lavish the name of Lordship upon a mere man? And how, too, can there be one faith? Or how one baptism? For if there are two sons, according to some, in whom do we believe? It would be a work of their ignorance to say in whose name we are baptized, given that baptism is one.

^B Your prudence clearly understands that this insane doctrine leans toward a great absurdity, or rather, that it is borne headlong into the ultimate impiety. I believe, however, that you, since you examine this divine mystery of Christ more accurately, distinguish with a sharp eye of the mind those who contrive imposture and put on the mask of piety for their own words, while meanwhile they strike with something sharper than any poisoned arrow. For they deny, as far as it is possible to express it in the power of the truth, the Master who bought them, that is, Christ. Fearing, however, the distress of those accustomed to piety—and indeed a zeal worthy of emulation—they confess that He who was born of the holy Virgin is also God, and certainly also Lord, and the Son of God. And if any of the simple-minded receive these accounts from them, they will likely think that they are speaking things that are ^C right and reasonable, and not discordant with the dogmas of the truth. But if anyone should choose to press them with inquiries and perform an exact examination of what is being said, he will find nothing simple. For there are many gods and many lords, both in heaven and on earth, just as the blessed Paul writes to us: “But for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.” Yet when we name Jesus Christ, we signify the Word from God the Father who appeared in human form, not having the dignity as a gift or acquired from without, but being this in truth, as it is believed to be. For being God by nature, even without flesh, He remained God even with flesh; and being the Son by nature, even before flesh, He remained the Son even after He became flesh; and being truly the Lord of all, He is seen again in this glory even after He has become a human being. Therefore, if they say that He who was born of the holy Virgin is true God, that is, the Word from God the Father, according to ^D the order...

and does it not fall from its dignity. If, therefore, they recognize that He who proceeded from the holy Virgin—that is, the Word of God the Father united to flesh according to nature—is the true God, why do they fear to confess that the same Virgin is the Mother of God? But it is their intention not to profess from the heart that the Son of the Virgin is God and Lord, and gifted with the same authority as the Father, but only to pretend to do so in words. For they believe that, to a man born of the holy Virgin in our likeness, the glory both of sonship and of lordship has accrued by way of a certain grace and through progress. ^B By the same.

We say, therefore, that the Word of God, being spirit as He is God, for the salvation of all, as the Scriptures testify, was made flesh and became man, not by taking to Himself a body from His own nature, nor by ceasing to be what He was, nor by undergoing any change or alteration; but by taking from the holy Virgin an immaculate body, animated with a rational soul, and making it His own through a union that is in no wise confused, which can neither be comprehended by the mind nor explained by words at all, to such a degree that it is to be understood not as the body of another, but as His very own. Thus did the Only-Begotten enter into the world, who became the firstborn among many brethren, yet who, as God, cannot be placed among created things. Wherefore, when it is said that He was born of a woman, it is necessarily added "according to the flesh," lest it be thought that He received the beginning of His existence from the holy Virgin, when He is before all ages ^C and is coeternal with His own Father, the God Word. But when, by the will of the Father, He willed to take the form of a servant, then it is said that He submitted also to the birth from a woman according to the flesh. Therefore, without controversy, that which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is out of God is God. But in Him, both are Christ, being one Son and Lord with His own flesh, not inanimate, but, as I have said, animated with a rational soul. Let them not, then, divide the one Son into two sons for us, setting the Word and Son apart on one side, and the man from the woman separately and individually on the other, as they themselves say; but let them consider that the God Word was not joined to a man, but that He Himself is said to have become man, taking hold of the seed of Abraham, as the Scriptures say, and being made like unto his brethren in all things, ^D except for sin alone. Absolute likeness will have its origin, first of all, in the birth from a woman; and even if it is conceived in a way above us, it is nevertheless human and according to us, for it is of the Only-Begotten, who is above this. For God was made flesh. Wherefore the holy Virgin is also called Mother of God. But if they say that God and man, having come together into the same, have produced one Christ, the hypostasis of each being preserved without confusion, we cannot see that they hold or state anything precise thereby. For it is not, as they say, that God and man coming together produced one Christ, but, as I have said, the Word already existing as God, in a manner similar to us, partook of blood and flesh,

^A in order that God becoming man might be understood, and having taken our flesh, and having made it his own, in order that, just as the man who is understood in our likeness is one out of soul and body, so also he himself may be confessed to exist as one Son and Lord. For it is confessed that there is one nature and constitution of man, even if it is understood to be out of different and heterogeneous things. For the body is admittedly of a different nature—compared with the soul—but it is proper to it and a co-constituent of the hypostasis of the one man. And although in theory the difference of the things named is not discordant, yet the union, or convergence, having an indivisible quality, produces the man as one living being. The Only-begotten Word of God, therefore, did not come forth as man by taking on a man, but—even though he has an ineffable generation from God the Father—by fashioning a temple for himself through the Holy and consubstantial Spirit, he became man. Therefore, he is also understood as one.

From the same, from his Discourse to the Presbyters and Deacons.

He was begotten, indeed, as is confessed, from the very essence of the Father, his living and hypostatic Word; but in the last times of the age, since he became flesh, that is, since he was united to flesh possessing a rational soul, he is said to have been born carnally and through a woman. And the mystery concerning him is somehow like the birth that takes place among us. For mothers on earth, indeed, perform the duty for generation, and they carry in the womb the flesh that is being formed little by little, and that is advancing ^B toward perfect human form by certain ineffable energies of God; but God injects the spirit into the living being. For he fashions the spirit of man within him, as the Prophet says. There is one principle of the flesh, and likewise another of the soul. But even if these are mothers only of bodies from the earth, yet, because they produce the whole living being—I mean that which is composed of soul and body—they are not said to have given birth to a part; nor would anyone say, for example, that Elizabeth gave birth to the flesh, but not also to the soul, inasmuch as she gave birth to the ensouled Baptist. I imagine that something of this kind also occurred in the birth of Emmanuel; or rather, it is necessary ^C to say so. For the Word of the Father himself was begotten from the essence of God and the Father, as we have said. But since, having taken flesh and having made it his own, he was also named Son of man and became in our likeness, nothing, I think, is absurd in saying—or rather, it is necessary to confess—that he was born according to the flesh through a woman; just as, indeed, the soul of a man is born together with its own body, and is considered one with it, although its nature is understood and exists as distinct ^D from it in its own way. And if anyone should wish to say that the mother of so-and-so gave birth to the flesh of that person, but not to the soul, he will be considered highly foolish and empty-headed. For she gave birth, as I said, to the living being cleverly composed of dissimilar things—out of two, yet as one man, while each remains what it is, yet they have come together in a sort of natural unity, and have mingled among themselves, what

^A belongs to each has become the property of both. That this union in Christ is most necessary, and is most easily and effortlessly perceived by many other reasons, we shall nevertheless, if it seems good, weigh the words of the blessed Paul and consider them diligently to the best of our ability. Therefore, he says regarding the Only-Begotten: *Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself*. Who, then, is he who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, or in what manner was he emptied, or how did he humble himself and was found in the form of a servant? ^B Those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two—namely, into a man and the Word of God—say that he who was born of the Virgin underwent the emptying, thereby separating the Word of God from him. Let them show, then, first that he existed in the form and equality of the Father, so that he might also undergo the manner of emptying, in which he was not. But no created thing exists by its own nature in the equality of the Father. How then is he said to be emptied, if, being by nature a man, he was born of a woman, just as we are? Tell me, from what more ancient condition, which is superior to the human, did he descend in order to become a man? Or how is it understood that he took ^C the form of a servant, which he did not have in the beginning, he who by nature is among servants and remains under the yoke of servitude? But, they say, truly the Son, who is free by nature and is the Word of the Father, existing in the form of him by whom he was begotten and being equal to him, dwelt in a man born through a woman, and this is the emptying, and the humility, and the accepting of the form of a servant. What? O excellent men, was it sufficient for the emptying of the Word of God that he should dwell in a man? And is it safe to say that by this method he underwent the form of a servant and thus fulfilled the mode of emptying? ^D And yet I hear the holy apostles being addressed by him in this manner: *If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him*. Do you hear how he said that God and the Father would dwell with him in those by whom he is loved? Shall we therefore concede that the Father was also emptied, and bore the same humility that the Son underwent, and accepted the form of a servant, because he constitutes the holy souls of those who love the Son as his own dwellings? What? Does the Holy Spirit himself, who dwells in us, also fulfill the economy of taking on human flesh, which we say the Son alone performed for the sake of the salvation and life of all men? Away with such pointless, utterly foolish, and empty temerity. Therefore, the Word, existing in the form and equality of God and the Father, humbled himself when, as John says, he was made flesh and born of a woman; and having his origin from God the Father, he willed also to undergo our origin for our sake. Let these men teach us in what way the Word from God the Father

is to be understood and called Christ by us, if he is not named Christ from the fact of having been anointed? Whom did the Father anoint with the oil of gladness, that is to say, with the Holy Spirit? If, therefore, they say that it is God the Word, begotten solely from the Father and from him alone, and if they say this is true, they are ignorant, and furthermore they wrong the nature of the Only-Begotten, and they deny the mystery of the dispensation in the flesh. For if, being God, the Word was anointed by the Holy Spirit, he certainly would have been in need of sanctification, and they will, even if they do not wish it, have to confess that he existed according to the times of old, during which, not yet anointed, he was still lacking the gift later bestowed upon him. But that which is deprived of sanctification is shaken by nature, and would not be understood as being at all devoid of sin, in other words, incapable of erring. The Word, therefore, would have undergone a change for the better. How then is he the same, and not altered? And if the Word, being God and in the form and equality of the Father, was anointed and sanctified, one might perhaps say, wandering away from the subject at hand to trivial thoughts, that even the Father himself would be in need of sanctification, or rather that the Son would even appear greater than him, since the Son was sanctified while being equal to the Father and in his form before the sanctification; while the Father remained as he was always, and is, and shall be, and has not yet received an increase toward the better, that is, being sanctified ^B in the manner of the Son. And the Spirit, who sanctifies them both, would appear greater than both. For it is doubtful to no one that the lesser is blessed by the greater. But these things are nonsense, and empty talk, and accusations of mental derangement. For the Trinity of the same essence is holy by nature. The Father is holy, the Son is holy in the same manner by essence, and likewise the Holy Spirit. Therefore, so far as his own nature is concerned, the Word of God has not been sanctified separately. But if someone thinks that it was only the one born of the holy Virgin who was anointed and sanctified, and that because of this he was called Christ, let that person come forward and say whether anointing is sufficient to declare that he who is anointed is equal in glory and dominion to the God who is above all things. But if he says that this is sufficient, since we also are anointed; and divine John so testifies, saying: "And you have an anointing from the Holy One," ^C shall we perhaps also be equal to God? What will there be to hinder us from sitting with him, just as Emmanuel himself does? For thus it was said to him: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." Let the holy multitude of the holy angels worship us as well. For when, he says, he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says: "And let all the angels of God worship him." As for us, although we have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, and have obtained the grace of adoption, and are called gods, we do not, however, ignore the condition of our nature. For we are from the earth, and are numbered among the servants. But He is not among those for whom we are, but is by nature and truly the Son, and of all

^A Lord, and from the heavens. And we certainly do not say, when we choose to think rightly, that God became flesh, nor that the very nature of the Divinity was born through a woman, before it had taken on the human element. Rather, bringing together into an ^B union both the Word born of God and the one born of the holy Virgin as a perfect man, we shall worship one Christ Jesus and Lord, neither casting Him outside the bounds of the Divinity because of the flesh, nor, on the other hand, reducing Him to a mere humanity because of the likeness to us. Thus you will understand the Word born of God to have endured the voluntary emptying; thus it is said that He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, though in His own nature He is free; thus He took hold of the seed of Abraham, and became a partaker of blood and flesh. For if He is understood as a mere man such as we are, how did He naturally take hold of the seed of Abraham other than himself? And how is He said to have partaken of His own flesh, having become in all things like unto the brethren? For that which is said to be made like to certain persons, runs from some dissimilar thing to the point of needing to be made like them. The Word of God ^C therefore took hold of the seed of Abraham and partook of blood and flesh, making the body from the woman His own, so that He might be known not only as existing as God, but now also as having become man like us through the union. Therefore, from two things, namely divinity and humanity, Emmanuel consists, yet there is but one Lord Jesus Christ, and one and truly the Son, God at once and man, and not a man made God, equal to those who are such by grace, but rather true God, having appeared in a human form for our sake. Let the divine Paul persuade us of this, saying, "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Who, then, is that one who was sent, and made under the law and of a woman, as I have said, unless it be He who was above the law, as God? But after He was declared to be man, He was made under the law, so that He might be made like His brethren in all things. And so, He paid the didrachma along with Peter according to the law of Moses; but that He is free as Son, and superior to the law as God, even if He was made under the law as man, He Himself taught, saying, "Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers?" And when Peter answered, "Of strangers," He added, "Then are the children free." Furthermore, we call the Virgin the Theotokos, but not Christotokos, because in another way—that is, the anointed—both kings and priests are called ^D christs, nor only those who were formerly anointed with the horn of oil, but also those with the Holy Spirit. The mothers of these can be called christ-bearers, but not God-bearers. And indeed, they are also called gods in another way, as that which says: "God hath stood in the assembly of the gods." Therefore, so that the one born of the holy Virgin may not be thought to be one of these who are called christs, we do not call her the Christ-bearer...

although she did give birth to Christ, but rather the Theotokos, so that we might not be thought to consider the one born as a mere man and like those christs. Distinguishing her from other mothers of christs, we name her specifically and preeminently the Theotokos. ^B

Again against the Nestorians, from Damascene. Chapter 76.

We preach the holy Virgin to be properly and truly the Theotokos; for just as He who was born of her is true God, so she who gave birth to the true God incarnate from herself is truly Theotokos. For we say that God was born of her, not as if the divinity of the Word took its beginning of existence from her, but because the Word Himself, who was begotten from the Father before the ages without time, and exists without beginning and eternally with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the last days for the sake of our salvation, dwelt in her womb, and was, without change, incarnate and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not give birth to a mere man, but true God; not bare, but incarnate; not having brought His body from Heaven and passed through her as if through a conduit, but having taken from her flesh of the same substance as us, which He caused to subsist in Himself. ^C For if the body had been brought from Heaven, and had not been taken from nature such as ours, what need was there for the incarnation? For the incarnation of the Word of God occurred for this purpose: that the nature which had sinned, and fallen, and become corrupt, might overcome the tyrant who had deceived it, and thus be delivered from corruption, as the divine Apostle says: "Since by man came death, and by man came also the resurrection of the dead." If the first is true, then so is the second.

But if he also says: "The first Adam is of the earth, earthly; the second Adam, the Lord, is from Heaven," he does not imply that His body flowed from Heaven, but he shows that He is not a mere man. For, as you see, he termed Him both Adam and Lord, indicating both together. For "Adam" is interpreted as earth-born; and it is clear that ^D the earth-born is the human nature, which was fashioned from dust; while the name "Lord" declares the divine nature.

And again the Apostle says: "God sent forth His Son, the Only-Begotten, made of a woman." He did not say, "through a woman," but, "of a woman." Thus the divine Apostle signified that He Himself is the Only-Begotten Son of God and God, who became man from the Virgin; and the same One is the One born of the Virgin, the Son of God and God.

^A For He did not dwell in a man previously fashioned, as in a prophet, but He Himself became man substantially and truly; that is, in His own hypostasis He made the flesh—endowed with a rational and intellectual soul—to subsist, offering Himself as its hypostasis. For this is the meaning of "born of a woman." For how could the Word of God Himself have been born under the law, had He not become man, of the same substance as us?

^B The name of the Mother of God declares the whole mystery. Therefore, we rightly and truly call the holy Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos); for this name constitutes the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she who gave birth is the Mother of God, then He who was born of her is certainly God, and certainly also man. For how could God, who existed before the ages, be born of a woman, unless He had become man? For he who is a son of man must necessarily be a man himself. But if He who was born of a woman is God, He is undoubtedly one and the same as He who was born of God the Father, so far as the divine and beginningless substance is concerned; and He is the same One who in the last times was born of the Virgin according to that substance which had a beginning and was subject to time, that is, the human substance. This signifies one hypostasis, two natures, and two births of our Lord Jesus Christ.

^C The Fathers refused to call the holy Virgin "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer), because this term was devised by the impure, abominable, and Jewish-minded Nestorius—that vessel of dishonor—to abolish the title of Theotokos and to bring into contempt her who alone is truly to be honored above every creature; the Mother of God (may he burst asunder with his father, Satan!). For King David is also called "christ" (anointed), as is the high priest Aaron, since kings and priests were accustomed to being anointed; furthermore, any pious man to whom God has breathed can be called a "christ," but he is not God by nature. Just as that detestable Nestorius furiously spat out with his mouth that He who was born of the Virgin was a "deifer" (God-bearer). ^D But far be it from us to say or think Him a "deifer"—as if He were merely inspired by God—but rather the incarnate God. For the Word Himself became flesh, conceived indeed from the Virgin, but proceeding as God along with the assumed nature, which had reached deification at the very moment it was produced. From this point on, three things occurred simultaneously: that it was assumed, that it began to exist, and that it was deified by the Word. Hence, the holy Virgin is understood and called the Mother of God not only on account of the nature of the Word, but also on account of the deification of the human nature, of which both the conception and existence were worked by miracle; the conception of the Word, and the existence of the flesh in the Word Himself; the Mother of God herself supernaturally providing its formation to the Creator, and its becoming human to God and the Maker of all, who deifies what is assumed, while saving those things that belong to the union—not only the divine, I say, but also the human of Christ, which is above us,

and yet is our own. For it did not happen that, having formerly existed like us, it later became superior to us; rather, it existed as both from the very first moment of its existence, since from the extreme moment of conception it had its existence in the Word. Therefore, what was assumed is indeed human by its own nature, but it is God’s and divine in a supernatural way. Indeed, it possessed the properties of animated flesh; for the Word accepted these for the reason of His dispensation, things which, according to the order of natural movement, are truly natural. ^B

Of the same. Chapter 86.

He is said to progress in wisdom, and in stature, and in grace; increasing in stature, and by the growth of his stature bringing to light the wisdom that was already within Him; furthermore, making the progress of men in wisdom and grace, and the perfection of the Father’s good pleasure—that is, the knowledge of God and salvation of men—His own progress, and making our own affairs His own in every respect. But those who say that He progressed in wisdom and grace as if receiving an addition of these, following Nestorius the empty-headed, devise a relative union and a mere indwelling, not knowing what they are saying nor of what they speak with such certainty. For if the flesh was truly united to the Word of God from the moment of its existence—or rather, existed in Him—and possessed a hypostatic identity with Him, how could He not have been perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace? ^C

Of the same. Chapter 98.

Our Lord Jesus Christ was sinless, for He who takes away the sin of the world committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth; He was not subject to death, if indeed death entered into the world through sin. He dies, therefore, undergoing the death on our behalf, and offers Himself to the Father as a sacrifice for us. For we had sinned against Him, and it was right that He should receive the ransom for us, and thus we be freed from condemnation. But even if He has died as a man, and His holy soul was separated from His immaculate body, yet the divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from both the soul and the body. And not even so was the one hypostasis divided into two hypostases. For indeed the body and the soul, ^D which from the beginning had their existence in the same hypostasis of the Word, even though they were separated from one another in death, remained possessing the one hypostasis of the Word and remained indivisibly united to Him.

TITLE XVI. OF THE GREAT ATHANASIUS AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THAT CHRIST HAS ONE COMPOSITE NATURE.

Although this heresy was later propagated by Eutyches, Dioscorus, and the Monophysites, there were nevertheless some before them who cast the seeds of this nefarious opinion. Saint Maximus, moreover, says that Apollinarius was the one who disseminated it.

What is this argument, with which they attack souls as if with a battering ram? They say that God the Word made the assumed flesh a part of His own essence, so that in this way the two might be understood as one essence, which is impassible in so far as it is the Word, but which suffers through the part of the flesh which joins with the Word to complete a single essence. Anyone can easily understand that this is absurd and highly execrable. The flesh, they say, is a part of the divine essence, and—what is even more ridiculous—a part of Him who has no parts. They make that which is simple into something composite. For if such parts, when they meet to form one thing, demonstrate that it is composite, it is shown to consist of differing parts. Furthermore, it receives an increase from the added flesh, which is not viewed as having its own nature, but as having become a part of the essence of the One who took it. ^B Moreover, a change is evident from these things, since the Word no longer remains in His eternal essence, but is shown to become something else on account of the increase. You constitute the mutable nature as a part of the immutable nature, and you manifest this one new composition out of both, and a change, so that a great difficulty arises in the mind, since neither can it be seen what follows from this, nor can a name be found for the subject matter. For by what name shall we call this one essence out of both? "Word" only? But the part belonging to the flesh does not permit this. "Flesh" only? But the nature of the Word does not concede this. "Christ"? But this is a name of the Economy, not of the essence. O the madness of impious men, who, while daring to manipulate the immutable essence, have even stripped it of its proper name! For by this reasoning, not even that which belongs to the Son—the fact that He is of the same essence as the Father—will be preserved. For he who admits an accretion and change to his own essence by the admixture of another is not of the same essence as Him who remains in the same essence. For the Father possesses nothing in His nature besides His own glory. But the Son, by attaching flesh to His nature so that there might be one essence of the flesh and the Word, is discovered to be far removed from Him who has received no accretion for the increase or change of His own essence. It is necessary, therefore, either to acknowledge not a single essence of the Word and the flesh, but an unconfused union, or else to fall into the error of the followers of Arius, and to introduce the diversity of essence of those men, and to oppose the sacred words of the Lord, and with great peril to reject that saying: "I and the Father are one" (John x, 30); and: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John xiv, 9). How are they one, where the...

^A And where such a great difference is found, that one, to be sure, has remained up to the end such as He is believed to have been from all eternity, while the other, by the composition of the flesh, has mixed His own essence, or increased it, or through confusion changed into something else? How does he who sees this one, see that one, if the divinity alone manifests the essence of the Father, but the divinity and humanity of the Son—which are one thing by nature—manifest His? And the essence of the Father has no part that suffers; but the nature of the Word has a part of the flesh that suffers. What is more nefarious than this impiety, to speak of one essence, and to cut this into various and distinct parts, and to utter reproachful words which cannot be accommodated to the proposition unless there be a part of the perfect nature that is passible and a part that is impassible; and a part that suffers, and a part that does not suffer; and a part that lives, and a part that dies? Truly, a more miserable creature, whose mortified pains a part perceives by sense, if indeed it belongs to one essence at once to perish and to live. But let this vain doctrine be rejected. ^B Neither have we received that a part of a simple nature—which cannot be divided—suffers, nor have we learned that what is impassible suffers in one part but does not suffer in another, nor do we recognize the definition of one essence in two, nor do we admit it of a diverse one, even if we accept the name. These are the things which they are found to establish, who say that the Word and the flesh have come together into one essence. How, therefore, both has the flesh been assumed, and He who assumed it not been changed, and He who is joined with it, does He preserve the same essence with His Father? How, from the assumption of the flesh, and from those things which were done through it wisely and beyond what can be told, does He not arrive at an increase or a change of His own essence, but at a communication of natural dignity, which He accomplished by the grace of an arcane conjunction? For it is one thing to say that two perfect natures have come together into one person, and another to assert that one essence has been fashioned from two parts. ^C For the account of the divine essence is simple, but the miracle of the human dispensation is twofold. Therefore, neither is the simplicity of the essence cut into various parts, nor is the twofold account of the dispensation fused into one essence. For how is it possible that what is eternal and what is recent be considered in one nature? Could the blood and the water that flowed like a fountain from the side also be the essence of the divinity? If it belongs to the same one both to suffer and not to suffer, it is necessary that the wills be distinct, and the actions not the same. For one thing is fitting for the form of God, and another for the form of a servant; one thing for the temple, and another for the indwelling God. They introduce, therefore, a perpetual sedition ^D into one essence, of which essence one part wills one thing, and the other another. If it is one essence, why does He say: "Not what I will, but what thou wilt"? How is the same one both the Creator and the creature? How is the same one both knowledgeable of all things before they come to be, and ignorant of the last day and hour? How is the same one both praying and receiving prayers? How does He say: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Who knows an essence that is abandoned by itself, and that calls upon itself as another...

^A lumine demonstratur,—which follows of necessity from the duality of natures! But since we have taken up the example of human nature towards piety, while others take it up for perversion, it is necessary to hold a discussion about this matter also.

The same, against the same.

Behold, for another sophism coupled with impiety they have produced. Just as, they say, man, consisting of two, is called one nature, so also the Master Christ, existing from the Word and flesh, is shown to be one essence. That it is not possible for things so far removed from one another to constitute one perfect essence, and not to make it mutable, has been briefly stated before. But that this example is of no advantage to the matter proposed by them shall immediately be shown. For man is rightly acknowledged as a living creature consisting of an intellectual soul and a sensible body; ^B because of this, neither one has—apart from the other—a prior subsistence, nor does it preserve the definition of nature, since both take the principle of existing from the womb at the same time, and thus come into life, working together for the constitution of one living creature. But the Lord Jesus does not receive the principle of existing from imperfect things, but shows a union of perfect natures in Himself. And while there the parts of man are soul and body, here neither the flesh is a part of the Word, nor the Word a part of the flesh. For each of them, even before their union, shows a perfect nature, so that nothing at all is lacking either to the divinity for its own definition, or to the humanity. For it is one thing for an essence to be completed from two parts, and another for two essences to be joined, of which each one is perfect. Wherefore He is also called the form of God, and the form of a servant. In man, indeed, neither is the soul alone a man, nor the flesh. For if either of these were in reality a perfect nature, it would have accomplished ^C something by way of action even without the other. And this is clear not only according to divine laws, but already according to human reasoning. Consequently, those skilled in these matters define man as a "rational, mortal animal"; interpreting the "rational" from the soul, and declaring the "mortal" from the body. Thus they deemed both to be of one person, not two. In the same way also, divine Scripture acts. For it signifies the same man to be both after the image of God, according to the excellence of the intellectual soul, and calls him male and female, according to the property of the flesh, to show that the soul and the body are parts of one person, not two. Why then do they use this example, which has no similarity? For if they showed two perfect persons combined into one essence, they would have rightly brought forth the example. But by calling them two parts of one person, they speak of two persons, ^D because the Master Christ is called two perfect things, both God and man, due to the perfection of both. Thus, indeed, the saving appellation of Christ now signifies the divinity alone, being in need of nothing and perfect, and now the humanity—

^A seeing that its perfection lacks nothing; now, however, it is with the person itself that it receives both the difference and the perfection of the two natures in a new conjunction. They, indeed, have applied the humanity towards the change and overthrow of the divinity; but we, in order to demonstrate and testify that the congress of two things can occur, and yet be one person. For if nothing prevents the nature of man from having two parts, from which one person arises—namely, the man who thus consists—how much more is divine grace able to bring it about that even two perfect natures concur in an unconfused conjunction, and yet one singular person is not taken away? ^B And just as when we hear: *One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things* (I Cor. VIII, 6), we attribute the creation of all things, as is fitting, to the divinity alone; so, hearing: *One suffering Christ*, we acknowledge the affection of the conjoined flesh. For how could we understand in the same thing, and of the same essence, both weakness and power? *The spirit*, he says, *is willing, but the flesh is weak* (Matth. XXVI, 41), not, however, a part of the flesh or a part of the spirit. And again: *For if he was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives by the power of God* (II Cor. XIII, 4). You see the names and the things: spirit and flesh, power and weakness, cross and life, he who raises and he who is raised, he who exalts and he who is exalted. You see, ^C however, in one person not a composition of parts, but a conjunction of perfect natures, by which they do not become two essences, but one dignity and glory is declared. We do not, therefore, deny the conjunction of the natures, but we say that they have not flowed together into one essence. That it is impossible for two essences to become one, the law of nature teaches, the reason of preaching teaches, and experience in every genus of things persuades; the Lord himself also clearly indicates this, who after his resurrection said to the disciples who still did not believe: *Handle me, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me to have* (Luc. XXIV, 39). *Handle*, he says first, that he might show himself not to be a spirit, ^D by which spectators might be deceived, but a body resisting touch. Who does not see the properties of the natures, since a spirit indeed has no flesh and bones, which are present to a body; and a body indeed is seen, but a spirit is not seen; a body is subject to touch, but a spirit does not fall under touch? How then is the essence one, when there is such a great difference?

Of the Same against the Same.

What are you saying? What are you demonstrating? Does the difference of nature depart, and is no mark of them left behind? How then shall we name the subject? As the Word alone? For no one would say this of the flesh, thinking that by such a name he is honoring it. And how do you not inflict an insult upon it, when you think its essence to be such that it is possible for another created essence to be changed into it? For that which is [index: entries preserved]

^A common to many, is not unique to one. But how do you attribute another "inaccessible" thing to the One to whom only the inaccessible is proper? And you not only insult the Word, but you also destroy the person of the flesh. For if no hallmark of it remains, in what way shall we perceive its glory? If it is known that it exists, you rightly honor it. But if it does not have existence, how does it enjoy the magnitude of glory? Unless you show that which you honor, the greatness of the glory is not made manifest. It is necessary, therefore, to confess the unconfused union of the two, which did not happen either to the change of the receiver or to the destruction of that which was received, but to the partnership of glory, which is declared in one person. For although you may suffer the Word alone to be named by nature, even if you struggle against it, you will not even so hide the distinction, ^B since one existed from the beginning, while the other was made. One, which can neither be seen nor touched, from infinite to infinite; while the other has passed from that which can be seen and touched to that which is neither seen nor touched. And the one is immutably the same, while the other has arrived from a mutable state to a more excellent condition. Furthermore, if this is truly the Word, why do we not find: "The flesh became Word," but rather: "The Word became flesh"? 1 Who, moreover, is so insane and devoid of reason as to dare to say that the divine essence has assumed another essence of divinity originating from a different nature, so that by such an accession it might provide an increase to be perceived for that which by nature needs nothing and is perfect? And how do the divine words, even after the strange ascent, still proclaim the things ^C that are distinct to the flesh—that He shall come again, that He shall be seen in the same manner? Or will you also contradict the angels, who said clearly: "This Jesus, who was taken up from you, will so come in the same way as you saw him going into heaven"? 2 All things point clearly to the signification of the flesh: the "this," the "will come," as one who is viewed in a body, now here, now there. "In the way you saw him," that is, with the eyes of the flesh. Whoever does not accept it in this way not only contradicts the angels, but also stands against the sacred oracles of the Holy Spirit. How does the Lord Christ intercede for many? As the Word alone? And where is the dignity equal with the Father, if, as an inferior, He intercedes and does not dispense ^D with authority, being equally omnipotent? Is it not clear that it belongs to Him who is called the first-fruits to intercede for His own lump, in order to show what great care He has for the nature of the flesh? But who would not be moved by the most clear preaching of the all-wise Paul, who says: "God, having overlooked the times of ignorance, charges all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, providing assurance to all by raising him from the dead"? 3 Has the distinction been destroyed? Did he not say, "God in a man"? Did he not show the God who raises, and the man who was raised? Yet, even if he showed the distinction, he did not overlook the inseparable. For he did not say, "God with a man," but, "God in a man." How then shall we understand also the "They will look

upon him whom they have pierced," ^A if the nature of the flesh which received the nails does not clearly reveal the marks? For the invisible and intangible essence of the Divinity was not about to bring forward signs of passions for a refutation, but the one taken from the passible race shall refute the lawlessness of the impious, who are forced to recognize their own daring deeds in the wounded flesh. Thus it has been shown that the properties of the natures are unassailable, and the profit of the Incarnation is irrefutable, and the argument of the opponents is shameless, and the power of the truth is unconquerable.

Of Saint Maximus against Eutyches and Dioscorus, who confound the two natures of Christ into one nature, whom some called Synchytics [Confusionalists], others Monophysites.

^B The Fathers teach that the reasons of the joined natures are always preserved; yet these very same things which are joined contribute to one person of the Son and one hypostasis. But if this is so, how is it not necessary again, according to the Fathers, while knowing that the reasons are preserved, to state the difference and, after the union, to preserve in the natural property each of the things which are joined, but while confessing that they contribute to one person of the Son, and one hypostasis, to know accurately that these are by nature inseparable? That the difference of the things joined, and those very same things which are joined, are preserved after the union ^C without any change and confusion, the most holy light of the Church, Cyril—to whom those who fight in vain against the holy Church of God pretend that something superfluous is added—will suffice to testify. For in the second tome of those things which he wrote against the blasphemies of Nestorius, speaking in this manner: "But when the mystery of Christ is brought into the middle, the account of the conjunction does not ignore the difference, but rejects the division; nor does it confuse and mix the natures, but it says that the Word of God was thus made a partaker of flesh and blood, so that one and the same Son ^D is nevertheless understood and named." And in the Apology to Andrew, who was finding fault with the third of the chapters, saying thus: "But it would be free from all blame, if one were to think that the flesh is by its own nature different from the Word begotten of God the Father, and likewise that the Only-begotten is different by the reason of his own nature. Yet, not even these things, to contemplate them thus, is to divide the natures after the union." Behold, how clearly it has been set forth by the great Cyril after the union, in which he both thinks and speaks piously with the faithful. For he declares that the reason of those things which are joined is in no way harmed by the conjunction. But that neither is mixed and confounded with the other, he declares from the fact that he says one is made from both in person, while each is preserved and remains as it is by essence. For this indeed, with [our] sa-

^A with the wise Cyril knowing it, he explicitly says that the natures have neither been confused with one another by contributing to the one hypostasis of the Son, nor divided from one another by being a different thing and another thing according to the essential logic, but that they exist, and remain, and are understood after the union, and each one with its natural property and difference, according to which the Word is God by nature, and not flesh, even if he made the flesh His own by dispensation. And the flesh is flesh by nature, and not God, even if it has become the flesh of the Word of God through the union. How then is it not necessary, and pious, and becoming, according to the teaching of the Fathers, to say that the difference is preserved after the union and that the two natures exist and are preserved in the one Christ, from which he also exists, if one wishes to acknowledge the difference after the union? For it is in every way a certain necessity that every difference must be the difference of certain things that differ, and where a difference is understood, it is possible for those things that differ to exist there as well. For such things happen to bring one another in, in a certain way, just as causes ^B and the things that proceed from causes, since they are thought of as being relative to something. For if the otherness of those things from which He is constituted is the creator of the difference in Christ, as a cause, then the difference itself also is necessarily indicative, as the caused effect of the natural otherness of the things united, as their proper cause. For such things are naturally brought in with one another, as has been said, and when one is spoken of, it is necessary by all means to acknowledge the other also. And when one is again taken away, it is not consistent to say that the other exists either. We must therefore also speak of two natures, so that we do not introduce a mere difference while using the number only to indicate the remaining difference of the things that have come together, as being preserved after the union, and not divided.

Of the same, from an oration in which he demonstrates that the reason for number does not imply a division of those things of which it is spoken.

Every number that is indicative of the quantity of certain things that differ according to the logic of how they are or how they subsist, is an indicator of the difference of the underlying realities, and not an inductor of their relation. ^C That matters are thus in the truth of the matter, and that every number is indicative of difference and not of division, the most holy Cyril again bears witness to the argument, writing as follows in his epistle to Eulogius, to the word: "In the same way we speak also of Nestorius, who, although he says 'two natures,' signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, yet he no longer confesses the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Lord, and henceforth one nature of the Word made flesh." As if he were saying that we, contemplating the all-wise economy of the mystery, when we wish to show that the difference of the things that have come together is preserved after the union, we say that there are two natures in this and this alone, taking the number only by way of contemplation to show the difference; but when we clarify the ineffable manner of the mystery of the union, we say one nature of the Word of God made

^A flesh.” This, I think, is what he wishes to signify: “We, by joining them together, confess one Christ, one Lord, and henceforth one nature of the Word made flesh.” That is to say: We, while confessing the union and accurately and piously explaining its manner, did not employ the term denoting "difference" to declare the union; but by taking one term for the difference and another for the union fittingly, we preserve the meaning of the things signified without confusion. Hence it is clear ^B that it was common to him and to Nestorius to speak of “two natures” as far as the acknowledging of the difference, but it was no longer common to confess the union by saying “one Son, one Lord, and one nature of the Word made flesh,” which Nestorius did not admit to saying. For by saying: “So also in the case of Nestorius: even if he says 'two natures,' signifying the difference of the flesh and of the Word of God, he does not for that reason confess the union with us,” he wishes to signify nothing else than this: that Nestorius confesses the difference with us when he says “two natures,” but he does not confess ^C the union with us, since he does not say “one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one nature of the Word made flesh.” And this is made clear to those who are lovers of the good and who are zealous to love the truth, from the fact that nowhere does their teacher appear either to forbid saying “two natures after the union” or to teach that the difference of those things that have come together is abolished after the union, as it is possible to learn from myriads of his writings. If, therefore, the union always stands, and the things united always remain without confusion, and the difference of the united things—for the sake of which the numerical distinction was accepted according to the Fathers—is always preserved; how is it not necessary, if indeed the union, and the things united, and their difference always stand and remain and are preserved, that we should also say "two natures" to declare the difference of the things that have come together, and, on the other hand, confess "one nature of the Word of God made flesh" to demonstrate the union according to hypostasis, and that neither of these terms is abolished by the other, as it seems to some who make ignorance an argument for wisdom?

Of the same, concerning the statement of Saint Cyril which is found in the letter to Succensus.

The blessed Cyril ^D does not appear to use the term “indivisible” simply, but rather against the craftiness of Nestorius, who said that the union consisted in habit. For thus the blessed Cyril himself confirms by his own testimony, at the end of his second letter to Succensus, and makes his meaning plain to those who are exceedingly contentious, saying thus: “The word ‘indivisible,’ which has been added, seems to us to be indicative of the right faith, but they do not understand it in this way. For among them, ‘indivisible’ is taken in another sense, according to the empty doctrines of Nestorius. For they say that the man in whom the Word dwelt is indivisible from God the Word himself, both in dignity, and in will, and in authority.” From which it is evident that they do not bring forward these words simply, but with guile and wickedness.

^A Behold how this admirable teacher clearly assumed that the mode of the "indivisible" is twofold: one as signifying the union according to hypostasis, which, as he embraces it, he says is indicative of right doctrine; the other as indicative of union only according to relation, which he rejects, and exhorts the faithful to treat as such, because from the similar pronunciation of the word, it is often possible for the poison of heretical impiety to slip in unnoticed to the more innocent. Whence, for his own part, he posits as orthodox to say "two indivisible natures," since he himself spoke of the union as being according to hypostasis; but he makes the term "indivisible" suspect when brought forward by the followers of Nestorius, because they thought that the union had come about only according to relative conjunction. ^B Union according to hypostasis, therefore, is, according to the Fathers, the coming together of those of different substance into one hypostasis, while each of those composed according to it retains its natural property in relation to the other, untainted, unchangeable, and indivisible. Relative union, however, is the state of those which, according to their way of thinking, subsist specifically in individual persons, [a state of] equal movement of will and sameness of opinion without variation. Therefore, he who confesses the union according to hypostasis, even if he says that there are two natures in Christ after the union, united indivisibly—that is, by the union according to hypostasis—he does not in any way wander from the truth. ^C For he confesses that those things of which Christ is composed have remained unmixed because of the difference preserved according to the Fathers, while they do not cease to be one according to hypostasis, with the natural difference not being outside, nor able to be known in any way without it. But he who advocates union according to relation, even if he says "indivisible" a thousand times, incurs censure. For he says that the things signified are united according to some affectionate disposition and have the "indivisible," but he is in no way able to state that God the Word is one person with his own flesh, taken from us, endowed with soul and mind. ^D For it is impossible for one person to be made from two specific hypostases which are divided by specific reason regarding the individual members of the same species. Therefore, our holy Father Cyril does not simply blame and reject those who say that there are two natures united indivisibly after the union, but [he rejects] the meaning of those who abuse these words. If, therefore, it has been demonstrated, both from the writings of the holy Fathers and from the consensus of common concepts, that number neither makes, nor suffers, nor introduces any division, but simply shows how many each thing is, and not how they hold themselves in relation to one another, what suspicion of cutting or division is then left for those who stir up seditions in the holy Church of God?

From the same discourse.

For they ought, if this were not truly the case, and if they were not putting forward the difference in name only and solely by pronunciation—as if it were based on nothing, and mockingly, to deceive the souls of the more simple-minded—they ought not to refuse to say what those things are that differ, and how many they are, the difference of which they confess exists.

For if they believe that those things from which the union is made are preserved after the union, they must necessarily confess that the things preserved are two. For as many are the things that have come together into an indivisible union, they have not received any change, or confusion, or diminution, or coalescing, or transformation into one another from the union. ^A Now, however, by not believing this—as though they denied that the natures are preserved after the union—they have rendered themselves liable to reproaches, even if they do not wish it, by saying that the difference of things is preserved by quality alone, without the things themselves. This is plainly the behavior of men playing games, and, as is fitting, not considering it a disgrace to be mocked, and plainly rendering the Gospel empty, asserting that qualities can exist without underlying essences, and proposing that a difference can be recognized without quantity. For these most wise men seem to have been ignorant that every quality belongs entirely to an underlying essence, around which it is considered and spoken of, since it cannot exist by itself. And every difference, since ^B it signifies the dissimilarity and diversity that various things have among themselves, in so far as they are in some way, constitutes the quantity of the differing things, whether they are essences, or qualities, or properties, or anything else of those things that differ among themselves, whether they understand difference by sense or by intellect. For it is not to be admitted that a difference can be confirmed without quantity; for those things which are not entirely the same among themselves do not in any way accept one and the same definition of existing—essence, that is, or nature with nature, or quality with quality, or property with property, or if there is anything else of those which are not entirely the same—so that we could never call it the same definition of how they exist.

From the same discourse.

If the definition of each of the united things remained unchangeable according to essence after the union, not falling into the limit of the other's ^C essence, the divinity of Christ has surely remained divinity according to essence, not having passed over into the essence of the flesh; and the humanity of the same has again remained humanity according to essence, not having suffered change into the nature of the divinity. But if neither the divinity of Christ nor the humanity have passed over into one another on account of the hypostatic union, but the natures have remained unconfused, according to the great Cyril, then the difference of the natures preserved in Christ after the union is clearly established, and no logic will gainsay it. But if there is a difference of the natures preserved without confusion in Christ after the union, and it is impossible for a difference to be known entirely ^D separated from quantity, let the quantity of the differing things be stated for the clarification of the difference, lest we be caught asserting a difference that is in some way naked and not true. For the argument knows every difference that does not have the truth of the things of which it is the difference underlying it substantially as "naked." We, therefore, who [do not] consider person and nature to be the same properly...

but, according to the teaching of the Fathers, piously confess the "same" and the "different" in Christ: the "same" on account of the one hypostasis, whereby we confess the God Word to be the same as His own flesh, lest the all-praiseworthy Trinity receive a personal addition and become a quaternity; but the "different" on account of the diversity of the essence of those things from which He is constituted, whereby the parts of Christ do not at all change into one another. For ^A deity and humanity could never be the same by essence, lest anything created become connatural or consubstantial with the deity by union; since we know that to say one nature is consubstantial with another by nature is the mark of a deranged mind. For never by nature could a nature be connatural and consubstantial. For the connatural and consubstantial ^B is by its nature predicated only of individuals of the same species which are accustomed to be referred to one essence.

*From the same discourse.*

Having this confession, we neither deny the difference of the natures after the union, from which the one Christ was composed, believing that the natures have remained unconfused, nor are we ignorant of the union according to hypostasis, confessing one Christ of the holy, and consubstantial, and adorable Trinity. But we also make the difference of those things from which Christ is, as being truly preserved in Him without change and confusion after the union, manifest through number, for the removal of the confusion of Eutyches; and, recognizing the union according to hypostasis, we proclaim with a clear voice that the one nature of God the Word has taken flesh having a rational soul, against the division of Nestorius, who announced a difference of person in Christ, and severed the same reason of person that belongs to the flesh with the Word.

*From the same discourse.*

For if Christ is God and man after the union, according to the common confession, it is clear that He truly possesses things corresponding to the names after the union. For things precede their proper names, nor could anyone say that there is a name without a thing, which by itself provides the occasion for the name, and in turn receives its manifestation. But if Christ, after the union, does not have the things whose names they are, it is manifest that He has these appellations "naked," inasmuch as they ^C are spoken of by name and are devoid of the things themselves. And Christ will be God and man only in name, and not in reality, as they think. To what could anything be less appropriate for God? But if, avoiding this insanity, they deny that the vocables in Christ are stripped of things after the union, just as they do not refuse to say there are two appellations of Christ after the union, let them also say there are two natures of Christ after the union, from which and in which He consists, of which these are the appellations.

*Of the same, concerning difference and quantity.*

Wherefore, then, the number, according to the opinion of the Fathers, does not designate a state, but the quantity of things. For all ^D

^A quantity, when considered through natural diversity, admits of difference; and those who fight against the truth nevertheless concede a natural difference in Christ after the union. It is therefore necessary that they should acknowledge, after the union, the quantity of the things that differ—without which it is impossible for a difference to be known—along with the number that reveals that quantity, without which the quantity itself cannot be known, if indeed they wish to demonstrate the order of their own dogma in accordance with orderly sequence. If, however, they deny the quantity of the natures preserved in Christ after the union, let them not dare to speak of a difference of the natures from which Christ exists after the union, knowing that whatever has a difference in any respect cannot be one in every respect and mode. But that which cannot be one in every respect and mode is, clearly, by some respect and mode, at the very least two or more. Consequently, those who say that there is a difference in Christ after the union cannot say ^B that Christ is one in every respect and mode after the union. But if Christ is not one in every respect and mode after the union, then it is clear that Christ is certainly two in some respect and mode after the union. And if Christ is two by some respect and mode after the union, due to that difference—as reason has shown—of the natures from which and in which He exists, it is clear that those people are impiously mistaken who speak of a difference of the natures from which Christ consists after the union, but who, by their silence, openly abolish the very natures whose difference they identify after the union. For the denial of things that exist and are preserved is truly an abolition. For if, according to them, the natures have not been abolished after the union, and they exist and are preserved, it is just to confess that they are preserved after the union; or, if it is not just to confess that they are preserved after the union, then it is just, according to them, to say that they neither exist nor are preserved in Christ, and they have been abolished. For what is not just to be named at all, it is, in my opinion, much better ^C and more just to say does not even exist. But just as Christ is not one in every respect and mode after the union, so, again, Christ is not two in every respect and mode after the union. If Christ is not two in every respect and mode after the union, then certainly, by some respect and mode, due to the hypostatic identity—that is, the one hypostasis—in which He cannot have difference, Christ is one. Since, therefore, the same Christ is one by one respect and mode, and two by another, it is necessary to consider by what respect and in what way He is one, and by what He is two.

Of the same, from the sixty-second response to Thalassius.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, who is simple by nature in Himself and always remains so, but who for my sake, by the assumption of a soul endowed with reason, became composite in hypostasis in a manner which He alone knows, neither ^D by that most intimate union with the flesh in hypostasis—

nor on the other hand by a natural difference toward the flesh—was He divided into a duality of sons. ^B By "most intimate," I mean, in the case of the hypostatic union, that which is completely indivisible, and in the case of the natural difference, that which is completely unconfused and immutable. Furthermore, the mystery of the divine incarnation does not at all entail, by the natural diversity of those things from which He consists, a hypostatic difference; the former, lest the mystery of the Trinity receive an addition, and the latter, lest there be anything in the Godhead of the same kin and essence by nature. For the concurrence of the two natures took place unto a hypostasis, but not unto one nature, so that both the "one" according to hypostasis might be shown as being accomplished through the union of the natures that ran together, and the "different" of those that came together unto the indivisible union might be believed—according to physical property—to be outside every sort of change and confusion.

For if the concurrence of the natures had taken place unto the generation of a nature, the mystery of our salvation would have been entirely unrecognizable to us, having no way or means to be able to learn of the condescension of God toward us, if the divine nature had been changed through the union of the flesh, or the divine had been turned into the essence of the flesh, or both had been muddled together into the generation of something else different from themselves, with neither of the natures from which He consists retaining its own reason intact. For whether the flesh were turned into the nature of the Godhead, or the nature of the Godhead toward the flesh, or the mode of union unto one nature had driven the natures unto the generation of some other different from them—I do not recognize the mystery of the divine incarnation, finding no natural difference between flesh ^C and Godhead in the mystery after the union. But if the difference between flesh and Godhead remains in Christ after the union—for Godhead and flesh are not at all the same by essence—the union of the things that concur did not take place into one nature, but into one hypostasis, in which we find no difference in Christ in any way whatsoever. For the Word is one with His own flesh by hypostasis.

Of the same, concerning the two natures of Christ.

Arius confesses the three hypostases, but denies the unity, and does not say the holy Trinity is consubstantial. Sabellius, however, confesses the unity, but denies the Trinity. For he says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same. But the Church confesses both the unity and proclaims the Trinity. Similarly, also in the case of the one of the holy Trinity, Nestorius asserts the natural difference, but does not confess the union. For he does not say that this took place by hypostasis. Eutyches, on the contrary, confesses the union, but denies the difference by essence and introduces a confusion of natures. But the Church proclaims both the union by hypostasis because of the indivisibility, and the difference by essence because of the lack of confusion. ^D From the same place also this:

In the holy Trinity there is the same essence, but different persons. For we confess one essence, and three persons.

^A In man, however, there is the same person, but a diversity of essences. For while man is one, his soul has one essence and his body another. Similarly, in Christ the Lord there is the same person, but a diversity of essences; for while there is one person, the essence of the divinity is one thing, and that of the humanity is another. But just as it is impossible in the holy Trinity to confess the unity while failing to declare the difference, so too in the dispensation [the Economy] it is absolutely necessary to proclaim both the unity and the difference.

And this. Just as we anathematize Sabellius for preaching a natural [physike] unity in the holy Trinity while denying the difference according to hypostasis, so too we anathematize Eutyches, who confesses the unity according to hypostasis in Christ, but does not acknowledge the natural difference.

And this. Just as we do not speak of the one essence of the holy Trinity in such a way as to imply a confusion of the three hypostases, nor of the three hypostases to the destruction of the one essence, ^B so too, regarding the One of the holy Trinity, we do not speak of one hypostasis in such a way as to imply a confusion of His two natures, nor do we speak of the two natures to the destruction of the one hypostasis.

And this. He who, because of the difference of the natures in Christ, does not acknowledge the unity according to hypostasis, is a Nestorian. And he who, in the unity according to hypostasis, does not admit the natural difference, is a Eutychian. But he who proclaims both the unity according to hypostasis and the natural difference in the One of the holy Trinity, holds to the royal and blameless faith.

And this. He who speaks of both the difference and the unity in Christ neither abolishes the difference nor confuses the unity. For Cyril, too, anathematizes those who abolish the difference by reason of the unity according to hypostasis, and the ecumenical synod anathematizes those who, by reason of the unity according to hypostasis, abolish the natural difference in the One of the holy Trinity.

From the same: That it is impious to call Christ one nature simply.

If, according to their opinion, ^C Christ is a composite nature — in which the citadel of the arguments of the wonderful Severus is established — it is either universal or singular; for we cannot conceive of a third. If Christ is a universal nature, He will obviously be predicated of many things that differ in number, and will exist merely in concept in those things in which He has essence, but He will not be known by Himself in any proper hypostasis, without the accidents of the individuals which are considered in the individuals themselves subject to it. For this is the definition and formula of every universal nature. And by this vain madness of Severus against the truth, a multitude of "Semi-Christs" would be introduced instead of one Christ, who would have no relation either with God or with men. But if Christ is a singular nature, ^D so that we might pass over that, there is no nature that is a single person.

^A And if they should indeed put forward the fabled bird, the phoenix, as an unassailable example upon which their opinion relies—for if the phoenix is a bird, it is entirely an animal; and if it is an animal, it is not, in the first place, entirely unique in its species, for it is not just an animal; furthermore, if it is an animal, it is an animate and sentient body. But if the phoenix is an animate and sentient body, it is clearly subject to generation and corruption. And if it is subject to generation and corruption, let us ask these wise observers of existing things whether it is possible for those animate and sentient bodies that are subject to generation and corruption to exist as a nature that is singular in its hypostasis, for which the succession of one by another in the species is an evident character of its existence. But if Christ is a singular nature, He is consubstantial ^B neither with God and Father, nor with men. For that which is entirely singular according to its nature is removed from all natural affinity with anything else whatsoever. But if, according to those men themselves, as reason has shown, Christ is entirely alienated from all existing things according to nature, we shall urge these new dogmatists to tell us themselves what kind of thing He is according to nature, and by what reasoning they worship Christ. If, therefore, a great and terrible danger necessarily follows, in accordance with the power of the argument presented, for those who say that Christ is one according to nature, or that He is one nature—whether it be called simple or composite, and whether this be called general, i.e., common, or singular, i.e., individual—let us keep our own hearts pure from such an opinion with every safeguard, so that we may be delivered also ^C from the threat that hangs over it.

By the same.

If, therefore, the Word of God was not composed according to the law and order of composed things, but according to another divine mode which cannot be explained by words—namely, through the assumption of flesh—and did not receive His essence through a generation coincident with the flesh, so as to complete a whole of some kind according to species, as the discourse of truth openly signifies to all; in vain do these ignorant men attempt to subject, impiously, that composition which surpasses every limit and reasoning of nature to the laws of nature. Wherefore, he who says that the Word was made man through the assumption of flesh both preserves the eternal essence of God before the ages, ^D and piously confesses the voluntary and spontaneous assumption of flesh in time, and guards the difference between the Word who assumes and the flesh assumed as being without confusion even after the union. But he who does not say that the Word of God was made man in an immutable way through the assumption of flesh, cannot truly confess any of the things that have been said in any way whatever.

By the same, concerning the phrase: "In two natures."

In two natures we believe Him to be indivisibly the same, as in divinity and humanity. Just as when we say that Christ consists of two natures, we understand Him as being out of divinity and humanity as parts of a whole, so also when we say that after the union He is in two natures, we believe Him to be in divinity and humanity as a whole in

^A parts. The parts of Christ are his divinity and his humanity, out of which and in which He consists. Furthermore, we have learned from the teaching of Saint Cyril to say and to preach that the one nature of the Word of God assumed flesh, endowed with a soul possessed of mind and reason, so that by saying "it assumed flesh," we understand that the essence of our nature has been brought in; and likewise that the miracles and the sufferings belong to one and the same Christ, and that His two births belong to the same: the one before the ages, incorporeally from the Father; and the one in time, bodily from the Mother and Virgin for our sake. For this reason, we most especially and in accordance with truth and in the proper sense confess her to be the Theotokos, since she gave birth in the last times to the God Word, who had been born from the Father before all ages, after He had become incarnate of her. We entirely refuse to call Christ "one composite nature," not only for the reasons we have stated, but also because no one among the approved Fathers has been found up to this day to have uttered this phrase, and because it is clearly seen to have originated from the heretic Apollinarius and his disciples.

On the same, concerning a composite person.

But if, because every person is found to be composite, having its own parts existing at the same time with itself and among themselves, and we do not refuse to say that Christ is a composite person, our opponents might say that we cannot shake off the reproach on this account, as having fallen into our own arguments—we respond that the matter would indeed be so if we conceded that it were composite as a species that could be predicated of it. But since we do not speak in this way, we fall into no reproach whatsoever. For we know clearly that every composite person is established under a species, not being composite by reason of itself, but by reason of the nature which, since it is composite, also contains the species that is predicated, and under which it ^C is naturally brought, as the particular, or individual, having whole in itself the universal, or the common and general most fully, but ascribing nothing at all of the reason of the individual to the universal. And no one among those who from of old until our time have been teachers of the word of piety has ever been declared to think this concerning Christ, for whom one will not be able to find either genus or species predicated as of Christ. For the God-sovereign Word did not descend to us by way of nature through flesh, but by way of dispensation, without loss, united our nature to Himself in accordance with personhood, and renewed it. So that they gained nothing from their much cogitation, having again fallen into quantity, which they had avoided, as they are not able to speak even of the difference in quality without quantity. For there is an absolute necessity ^D that there be many, or at least two qualities, as has been said, of which they assume the difference to consist. For no one in his right mind would ever say that a single quality, which is not mingled at all with another, differs from itself. It remains, therefore, that they must either retreat from this bare difference, once they understand that it signifies altogether a difference of some things, namely quantity, or yield with us to the confession of the truth through the argument of difference and only for the sake of knowledge

^A that those things which have come together have remained without confusion, in accordance with the Fathers. But if they would speak—wishing to be asked lovingly, if indeed the word of wisdom is in them, which is not ignoble—how is it that, while they say that two things have run together into a union, and do not deny that these same things have remained unconfused after the union, as if neither of them had departed from its definition and principle according to its nature (even if both contribute to the one person of the Son and one hypostasis), they do not confess that two things are preserved according to them, if indeed they speak the truth? And what is their argument for the diminution, and for what cause? And how have both natures become one? Or if the union has remained a pure diminution, what reason is there for that which is preserved without diminution not being spoken of? And we shall yield obediently to the deprivation of the one, and we shall admire their fine learning; the boldness, as if they alone were capable of the knowledge of the ineffable things revealed to us. But they will never be able to present the argument that convinces one of this.

^B The solution of the same question of Severus. They resort lastly to that rotten and empty invention of Severus, which is peddled and sung everywhere by him as if it were some wise thing, saying that it is ridiculous to say that two natures are constituted out of two natures, as though they were correctly refuting a captious argument proposed by us. For whom among those who are skilled in the divine institutions of the Church have they heard saying that the union of two natures constitutes two natures? They will by no means be able to say they have heard this, if they are studious of the truth. We say indeed that the union has been made out of two natures, ^C but that one composite person of Christ consists out of them, which preserves and guards those very natures—out of which it is composed—as a whole guards its own parts without defect, together with their natural properties and without change, and is itself preserved and guarded in them as a whole in its parts. Therefore, we do not say that out of two natures come "two natures," but one composite person of Christ, covering these natures as its own proper parts, and holding them as its own proper and complementary parts, and both existing and being known in them as in parts. Therefore, when we say "one" and "two" the same thing, we do not say both of one and the same thing according to the same respect, but according to one respect and then another. For instance, according to the principle of the natures out of which the union is made, we know "the two"—for we do ^D not recognize the divine Word to be the same in nature as his own flesh—but according to the principle of the hypostasis, "the one." For we know the divine Word with his own flesh to be the same according to the hypostasis. Therefore, we shall neither foolishly fuse the natures into one nature by saying that natural difference is abolished in Christ, lest we introduce a change of the Word and the flesh; nor, on the other hand, shall we insanely divide them into two properly existing persons by placing the difference according to the principle of the hypostasis, lest we deny our own salvation, just as those who, standing apart from each other in impiety, Apollinarius and

^A Eutyches once part, and Nestorius from another, acted: the former while ignorant of the natural difference in Christ, the latter while introducing a difference even of person; whence both fell away from the truth. But we, while acknowledging in the hypostatic union as well the natural property to be immutable [and that there is no confusion], we reject likewise splitting and division; for we neither establish confusion in place of union, as those who are ignorant of the things united, nor do we establish division in place of difference, as those who assert that things which differ exist separately of themselves. This, as I think, the great Theologian Gregory also appears to teach in his Apologetic Oration, where he says one from both, and through one both, which in his second Oration concerning the Son he explains more clearly, saying: "For even if both are one ^B, yet not by nature, but by the union."

Item against those who say there is one nature in Christ: of Damascene. Chapter 66.

For the natures were united to one another without change and without alteration, neither the divine nature departing from its own simplicity, nor indeed the human being changed into the nature of the Godhead, or passing into non-existence, nor from the two having been made one composite nature. For a composite nature cannot be consubstantial with either of the natures from which it was composed, having been formed from different things into something else; for example, a body, which is composed from the four elements, is neither called ^C consubstantial with fire, nor is it called fire, nor is it called air, nor water, nor earth, nor is it consubstantial with any of these. If, therefore, according to the heretics, Christ after the union has existed as one composite nature, He has changed from a simple nature into a composite one, and is neither consubstantial with the Father, who is of a simple nature, nor with the Mother. For she is not composed of Godhead and manhood; nor is she in Godhead and manhood; nor will He be called God, nor man, but Christ alone; and the name "Christ" will be not the name of the hypostasis, but of the one nature, according to them.

We, however, do not dogmatize that Christ is of a composite nature, nor that He is something else from others, as a man from soul and body, or a body from four elements, but that He is the same ^D from both—for from Godhead and manhood we confess Him to be the same perfect God and perfect man, and to be and to be called from two, and in two natures. And we say that "Christ" is the name of the hypostasis, not used in a single way, but signifying the two natures. For He Himself anointed Himself—as God, anointing His body with His own Godhead, but as man, Himself being anointed; for He Himself is this and that. And the anointing is the Godhead of the manhood. For if, being of one composite nature, Christ is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father will also be composite and consubstantial with the flesh, which is absurd and full of every blasphemy.

^A Furthermore, how can one and the same nature be capable of mutually conflicting substantial differences? For how can it be, that the same nature is at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?

The Monophysites acknowledge Christ as perfect in both natures. But if those who say that Christ is of one nature were to assert that this nature is simple, they will either end up confessing Him to be bare God, introducing a mere appearance—not an incarnation—or else, like Nestorius, a pure man.

The error of the Monophysites lies in the fact that they do not distinguish nature from person. Verily, this is what causes the heretics to err: the fact that they establish nature and hypostasis to be the same. Although we say that there is one nature of men, we do not say this by looking to the principle of the soul and the body; for it is impossible to say that the soul and the body are of one nature when compared with each other. But since there are very many hypostases of men, and all admit the same definition of nature—for all are composed of soul and body, and all have partaken of the soul’s nature, and possess the substance of the body and a common species—it is on account of this that we speak of one nature of many and diverse persons, because each person, having a dual nature, is understood to exist in two natures, namely, of soul and body. ^B

But in our Lord Jesus Christ, a common species cannot be taken. For there was not, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ from deity and humanity, and in deity and humanity the same perfect God and perfect man. Hence, it is not possible to speak of "one nature" in our Lord Jesus Christ, as we do in the case of an individual composed of soul and body, so as to speak of Christ in the same way as being made of deity and humanity. For in that case there is an individual, but Christ is no individual; for He does not possess an inherent "Christ-hood" species of which one could predicate this. ^C And therefore, we say the union has come to pass out of two perfect natures, that is, divine and human, not by way of mingling or confusion, or tempering, or blending, as the God-hated Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, and their unholy gang affirmed; nor [was the union] personal, or relative, or by way of dignity, or by conspiracy of will, or by quality of honor, or by the same promiscuous appellation, or by benevolence, as the God-hated Nestorius, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia and their demonic gathering supposed; but by composition—that is, according to hypostasis—without any conversion, confusion, mutation, division, or distance; and in two perfect natures we confess one hypostasis of the Son of God, even when incarnate, saying that it is the same hypostasis of His divinity and His humanity, acknowledging that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, ^D not placing each one separately and apart, but united to one another in the one composite hypostasis. For we say the union is substantial—that is, true, and not a matter of appearance.

^A Substantial, however, not in the sense that two natures have formed one composite nature, but that they have been united to one another in the one composite hypostasis of the Son of God. Nay, we maintain that the substantial difference of these is preserved whole and intact. For what is created has remained created, and what is uncreated, uncreated. What is mortal has remained mortal, and what is immortal, immortal; what is circumscribed, circumscribed, and what is uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed; what is visible, visible, and what is invisible, invisible: «The one shines forth in miracles, while the other is subject to injuries.»

Communication of Idioms.

Furthermore, the Word claims for Himself the things of His holy flesh, as they are His own, and conversely imparts His own things to the flesh, by reason of that mode of mutual communication, on account of the mutual interpenetration of the parts ^B and the hypostatic union, and because He was one and the same, who worked both divine and human things in each form with the participation of the other. For this very reason, the Lord of glory is said to have been crucified, even though His divine nature did not suffer; and again, the Son of Man is declared to have been in heaven before the passion, as the Lord Himself asserted. For He was one and the same Lord of glory, who by nature and in truth was the Son of Man, that is, who became man, and we recognize both His miracles and His sufferings as His own, even if He performed the miracles by the rationale of one nature, and endured the sufferings ^C according to the rationale of the other. For we know that, just as His hypostasis is one, so the substantial difference of the natures is preserved. But how could the difference be preserved if those things which have the difference between them are not preserved? For difference is the difference of those things which are diverse. Therefore, by the same rationale by which the natures of Christ differ from one another—that is, the rationale of essence—we say that He is joined to the extremes: according to His divinity, to the Father and the Spirit; but according to His humanity, to the Mother and to all men. By that same rationale by which His natures are joined together, ^D we say that He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and from the Mother and the rest of men; for His natures are joined together in the hypostasis, possessing one composite hypostasis, by which He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and from the Mother and from us. For His natures are joined by the hypostasis, so that they have one composite hypostasis, by reason of which He differs both from the Father and the Spirit, and from the Mother and us.

Of the same. Chapter 69.

Just as regarding the Godhead we confess one nature, yet we say that there are three hypostases existing in truth, and we declare all that is natural and essential to be simple, while we discern the difference of the hypostases in the three properties only—the uncaused and paternal, the caused and filial, and the caused and proceeding—and we know them to be inseparable and indivisible.

^A And we know those that are united to be unmixed; they are three, even if they are united; but they are divided without separation. For even if each subsists by itself, that is, is a perfect hypostasis, and possesses its proper property—that is, a different mode of existence—yet they are united in essence and in natural properties, and in not being separated nor departing from the paternal hypostasis, and they are and are called one God. In the same way, regarding the divine and hidden economy, which surpasses all mind and grasp, of the one of the holy Trinity, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess two natures, divine and human, having come together, and being united in each other ^B and in the hypostasis, and that one hypostasis has been constituted from the natures, complex. And we say that the two natures, even after the union, are preserved in the one complex hypostasis—that is, in the one Christ—and that they are in truth, and their natural properties as well; yet they are united unmixedly and divided and numbered without division. And just as the three hypostases of the holy Trinity are united unmixedly, and are divided and numbered without division, and the number does not work division, ^C or separation, or alienation, or partition among them—for we acknowledge one God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in the same way, the natures of Christ, even if they are united, are united unmixedly; and if they interpenetrate each other, they do not admit of any change or transformation of one into the other. For each keeps its own natural property immutable. Therefore they are numbered, and the number does not introduce division. For Christ is one, perfect in both deity and humanity; for number is not the cause of division or union, but is indicative of the quantity of the things being numbered, whether they are united or divided; united, for instance, in that this wall consists of fifty stones; divided, in that fifty stones lie in this field; and united, in that there are two natures in a coal, I mean fire and wood; divided, in that the nature of the fire is one, and that of the wood is another; it is another mode that unites and divides them, and not the number. As therefore it is impossible to call the three hypostases of the godhead one hypostasis, even if they are united to each other, so as not to cause confusion and disappearance of the difference of the hypostases, ^D so also it is impossible to call the two natures of Christ, which are united according to the hypostasis, one nature, so that we do not cause the disappearance, and confusion, and non-existence of their difference.

Of the same. Chapter 72. Another solution to an argument of Severus.

But if anyone asks concerning the natures of the Lord,

whether they are to be reduced ^A to continuous quantity or to discrete, we shall answer that the Lord's natures are neither one body, nor one surface, nor one line, nor time, nor place, so that they might be reduced to continuous quantity; for these are the things which are considered continuous quantities.

It must be known, moreover, that number belongs to things that differ from one another; and it is impossible for things that do not differ at all to be numbered. But in so far as they differ, to that extent they are numbered. For example, Peter and Paul: in the respect in which they are united, they are not numbered. For by the account of substance they are united, and cannot be called two natures; but in that they differ according to hypostasis, they are called two hypostases. So that number belongs to things that differ, and in the mode in which differing things differ, in that same mode they are numbered.

The natures of the Lord are united, indeed, without confusion according to hypostasis, but they are divided without division by the account and mode of their difference. And in the mode in which they are united, they are not numbered—for we do not say that there are two natures of Christ according to hypostasis—but in the mode in which they are divided without division, they are numbered; for there are two natures of Christ, by the account and mode of the difference. For they remain united according to hypostasis, and having the interpenetration ^B within one another, they are united without confusion, while each preserves its own natural difference. Therefore, by the mode of their difference, and by that alone, since they are numbered, they are reduced to discrete quantity.

How Christ’s flesh is to be adored

Of the same. Chapter 96.

^A with the God Word, for His sake and in Him it is adored. For just as the king, both naked and clothed in garments, is adored, and the purple as mere purple is trodden upon and cast aside, but once it has become a royal garment, it is honored and glorified, and if any one should treat it indecorously, he is, for the most part, condemned to death; and just as plain wood is not of such a nature that it cannot be touched, but when it has become charcoal after fire has been applied to it, it becomes unapproachable not of its own power, but because of the fire joined to it, and not because the wood's nature is unapproachable, but the charcoal, that is, the ignited wood—so also the flesh, according to its own nature, is not to be adored, but it is adored in the God Word made flesh, not for its own sake, but because of the God Word hypostatically united to it. And we do not mean that we adore bare flesh, but the flesh of God, that is, the God Word made flesh.

Of the same. Chapter 73.

For although there is no nature that lacks subsistence, nor any substance that exists devoid of person (since both substance and nature are considered in subsistences and persons), yet it is not necessary that natures united to one another ^B hypostatically should each possess its own individual hypostasis; for they can come together into one hypostasis, neither being without subsistence, nor each having a distinct hypostasis, but rather being enhypostatic, both having one and the same. For the one hypostasis of the Word, having become the hypostasis of both natures, ^C does not permit either that one of them should be without subsistence, nor does it allow them to be of different hypostases from one another, nor at one time to be the hypostasis of the one, and at another that of the other, but it exists always as the hypostasis of both indivisibly and inseparably; so, indeed, that it is not cut and divided into parts, distributing part of itself to this and part to that, but exists as the whole of the former and the whole of the latter indivisibly and wholly. For the flesh of the God Word was not fashioned so as to subsist separately, nor was another person made besides the person of the God Word; but since it subsisted in Him, it became rather enhypostatic, that is, subsisting in another, rather than ^D subsisting separately by itself; and it does not introduce another person into the Trinity.

Of the same. Chapter 74.

Divine names are common. Since these things are so, we define that addition which Peter the Fuller, or the Stammerer, made to the Trisagion hymn to be impious, as it introduces a fourth person, and places the Son of God—that is, the truly subsistent power of the Father—separately, and likewise separately [it places] Him who was crucified, as if He were different from that strong One, or else it deems the holy Trinity to be subject to passion, and crucifies the Father and the Holy Spirit along with the Son. Away with this blasphemy!

^A For we understand "Holy God" as referring to the Father, not by assigning the name of divinity to Him alone, but because we acknowledge that the Son is also God, and the Holy Spirit also God; and we apply "Holy Mighty" to the Son, not by stripping the Father and the Holy Spirit of might; and we assign "Holy Immortal" to the Holy Spirit, not to exclude the Father and the Son from immortality, but because we take all the divine names in every person simply and absolutely, imitating the divine Apostle, who says: "But for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we are through him; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, and we are in him." Furthermore, we also imitate the Theologian Gregory, who speaks in this way: "But for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things," using these little words—"from whom," "through whom," and "in whom"—not to divide the natures (for otherwise those prepositions or the order of the names ^B would never be changed), but to express the properties of one and unconfused nature. And this is clear from how they are gathered back into one, if only one reads that passage in the same Apostle not negligently: "From him and through him and in him are all things; to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

For that the thrice-holy is said not of the Son alone, but of the holy Trinity, the divine and sacred Athanasius testifies, as do Basil, and Gregory, and the whole choir of God-bearing Fathers; for by the triple holiness, the holy Seraphim indicate to us the three persons of the superessential divinity, while by the single lordship, they declare the one essence and empire of the divine Trinity. The Theologian Gregory says, at any rate: "Thus, therefore, the Holy of holies, which is even hidden by the Seraphim and celebrated with three sanctifications, converges into one lordship and divinity." And this has been philosophized most beautifully and sublimely by another of our predecessors as well.

^C

The tradition of the Trisagion under the bishop Proclus.

^A Wherefore it would be utterly ridiculous and ludicruous for that Trisagion canticle, accepted from the angels and confirmed by the repelling of encroaching evils, which the crowded synod of holy Fathers approved, and which the Seraphim even once sang, as if to express the three persons of the Deity, to be trampled underfoot—or at least to be "corrected"—by the wicked opinion of the Fuller, as if he excelled the Seraphim. Oh, what notable arrogance, not to say madness! But we (though the demons may burst with rage) say thus: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

Of the Same, against those who say that if man has two natures and actions, it is necessary to assert three natures and as many actions in Christ. Chapter 80.

^B Individual men indeed, since they consist of two natures—to wit, soul and body—and keep these immutable within themselves, are deservedly said to have two natures. For each, even after natural conjunction, preserves its own natural property. For neither is the body immortal, but subject to decay, nor is the soul mortal, but immortal. But if man is sometimes called of "one nature," the term "nature" is taken for "species." For we deny that man differs from man by any difference of nature; but all men have the same constitution, since they are composed of soul and body, and each individual fulfills two natures, and all fall under one definition. And that is not false, seeing that the sacred Athanasius calls the nature of all created things—because they are generated—"one" in that oration which he wrote against those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, speaking in this manner: "That the Holy Spirit is above all of creation, and something other than the nature of generated things, and special to the Divinity, can be understood again from this." ^C Since, therefore, every man is composed of soul and body, for this reason the nature of men is said to be one. But in the person of the Lord we cannot speak of one nature, since each nature even after natural conjunction preserves its property. Furthermore, a "species of Christs" cannot be found, for there was not another Christ who is the same, God and man, from divinity and humanity. And again: "It is not the same thing according to the species of man, 'one and one,' as far as the essence of soul and body pertains." For "one" according to the species of man signifies that which is the similarity in all men. But "one" insofar as it pertains to the essence of soul and body, by the very fact that it is "one," injures [the essence], since it reduces them entirely into nothingness. For either the one will be changed into the essence of the other, or from different things something different will come to be, and both will be changed, or if they remain in their own terms, there will be two natures. For the body is not the same in the account of essence as that which is incorporeal. Wherefore it is not necessary that he who [does not argue] not on account of the same quality of the essence of body and soul, but...

^A on account of the immutability of those individuals which are referred under the species, should say there is one nature also in Christ, where there is no species containing many persons. Moreover, every composition is said to be composed from those things which are proximately composed. For we do not say that a house is composed of earth and water and the other elements, but of stones and wood. Since it is necessary also to say that man is composed of at least five natures, namely from the four elements and the soul. Thus also in our Lord Jesus Christ we do not look to the parts of parts, but to those which are proximately composed, namely divinity and humanity. ^B Furthermore, if we say there are two natures in man, we shall be forced to say there are three natures in Christ; and you, in saying that man consists of two natures, define Christ as being of three natures, and likewise concerning the energies. For it is necessary that the energy be appropriate to the nature. And that man is called and is of two natures, Gregory the Theologian is witness, speaking thus: "But being double, that is, consisting of soul and body, and of the visible and invisible nature, the purification also is double, namely by water and the Spirit."

From the same, to those who ask whether the holy Theotokos gave birth to two natures, and whether two natures hung on the cross. Chapter 99.

^C That which is "made" (factum) and "not made" (non factum), which signifies uncreated and created, refers to nature. But "begotten" (genitum) and "unbegotten" (ingenitum) refer not to nature, but to person. Therefore, the divine nature is uncreated. But all things after the divine nature are made and created. Thus in the divine and uncreated nature, the unbegotten is considered in the Father, for He was not begotten; but the begotten in the Son, for He is eternally begotten from the Father; and the proceeding is considered in the Holy Spirit. Of each species of animals, the first ones are unbegotten, but not uncreated. For they were made by the Creator, but they were not begotten from like beings. For generation pertains ^D to creation; but birth, in the case of God, is the procession of an consubstantial Son from the Father alone, whereas in the case of created things, it is the procession of a consubstantial person from the conjunction of male and female. From this we know that to be born does not pertain to nature, but to person. For if it pertained to nature, the begotten and the unbegotten would not be considered in the same nature. Therefore, the holy Theotokos gave birth to a person, known in two natures, who as to His divinity was born from the Father without time, but in the last times took flesh from her, and was born in the flesh. The same is true concerning the crucifixion, and the resurrection, and the ascension. For these things do not refer to nature, but to person. Therefore, Christ, existing in two natures, suffered in His passible nature, and was crucified, and hung on the cross in the flesh, and not in His divinity. Thus God the Word, having become man, was born in the flesh,

^A but His divinity remained impassible.

*From the same, from chapter 75.*

That the nature of the Word was incarnate, that is, united to flesh, has been said; but that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh we have never yet heard, nor do we hear it even now; but we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh. It remains, therefore, to say that to be incarnate is to be united to flesh, but for the Word to become flesh is for the very hypostasis of the Word to become, without change, the hypostasis of the flesh. And it has been said that God became man and man became God; but that the divinity became man, or was incarnate, or became incarnate, we have not heard in any way. But that the divinity was united to humanity in one of Its own hypostases, we have learned; and that God is formed, that is, made substantial as we are, or after our manner, has been said. For on each of the hypostases the name "God" is imposed; but we cannot call the divinity a hypostasis. For we have not heard that the divinity is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone. For "divinity" signifies the nature, but "Father" signifies the hypostasis, just as "humanity" signifies the nature, and "Peter" the hypostasis. But "God" signifies also what is common to the nature, and is applied to each of the hypostases denominatively, just as is "man"; for he is God who has the divine nature, and he is man who has the human. And above all these things it must be known that the Father and the Holy Spirit in no way partook in the Word's assumption of flesh, except by divine prophecy, approval, and will.

^C *From the same. Chapter 90.*

The Word of God Himself endured all things in the flesh, while His divine and sole nature remained impassible. For the soul, being passible, when the body was lacerated, was itself also troubled and suffered together with the lacerated body; but the divinity, being impassible, did not suffer together with it. It must also be known that we say that God suffered in the flesh, but we do not say in any way that the divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if, while the sun is shining upon a tree, an axe cuts the tree, the sun itself is not cut and does not suffer, how much more did the divinity of the Word, which is impassible and united to the flesh according to hypostasis, remain impassible while the flesh was suffering? There is no necessity, however, that examples should be so entirely similar that nothing is missing, but in examples both similarity and diversity are considered. For that which is in all things similar would be the same thing and not an example.

*Item: Against those who assert one nature in Christ. Of various other Fathers.*

In their questions, the Eutychianists argue in this way: "If there are two natures in Christ, there will also be two hypostases; for no nature is without a person. And thus there will be, absolutely, two Sons." We reply to them that "hypostasis" signifies either a person (as in the case of the Holy Trinity, and angels, and men), ^D or it signifies existence, as in things which in any way exist,

^A to distinguish them from those which do not exist. Therefore, we say that in Christ there is one personal hypostasis; but to say there are two existential ones is not without danger, lest we call one of the natures in Him non-existent. For we shall find an existential hypostasis in every nature, but not a personal one in everything. Furthermore, Christ's personal hypostasis is the hypostasis of both of His natures, for He who was simple has become composite. And His divine nature indeed has its own hypostasis, but the human nature is neither non-hypostatic nor does it have its own hypostasis; rather, it is in-hypostatic, being in the divine hypostasis.

^B They accuse the duality as if it were the first division that occurs immediately after unity, whereas it is rather a conjunction of two units, and it immediately sets forth the power of comprehending itself. For those who are skilled in such matters have defined number not as a division of units, but rather as a collection of units. If they say that the analysis of the two into those things from which it was composed divides the union—whether this happens by conception or by operation—perhaps they would speak correctly; but duality remaining in itself is not a cutting, nor a division of units, but rather their union and conjunction. For the nature of number by itself is neither naturally apt to divide nor to join, but is receptive to both according to the reason of the one using it. For ^C the number of two cubits did not divide the two-cubit piece of wood, but even though it was measured, it retains its continuous quantity; nor were ten modii of wheat divided because they were measured. Even the Lord, when He said there are twelve hours in the day, did not divide its continuity. And the Apostle, having said, "Many members, yet one body," did not cut the members. And he who said, "All my bones shall say, O Lord, O Lord, who is like unto thee?" did not divide his bones. But if "twelve," and "many," and "all"—to pass over the rest—while they signify a number, nevertheless cause no division, who would assign to the number two alone ^D the singular function of having the power to divide, especially when we do not apply it for the division of the natures in Christ, but only for the manifestation of the difference between them, and as a clear indication that they remain immutable and unconfused after the pure and indivisible union? For even in the case of a body, though we speak of three dimensions, we do not tear the body into three parts. Therefore, just as in the case of the one Godhead the trinity of hypostases did not introduce a division that alienates them from one another—for they are distinguished, indeed, but without partition, and they are united, indeed, but without confusion; for they permeate one another without mixture, the properties of each being preserved—so also in the case of the one Christ, the duality of the natures did not bring about their separation. Two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ

is two natures. It is therefore the same thing to say: "Christ acts in two natures according to each of the natures," and "Each nature acts in Christ."

We speak of Christ both as being "from two natures," that is, from divinity and humanity, just as a whole is from its parts; and "in two natures," that is, in divinity and humanity; and also "two natures," that is, as God and man. And this is that which pertains to the "from which," and "in which," and "what it is."

After the conjunction of the two natures in Christ, one ought not to speak of division but of difference. For difference is the reasoning by which subjects differ from one another; but division is the cutting of a whole, by which things are alternately separated from one another.

When the soul was separated from its own body, the divinity was indivisible in both; it kept the body forever free from corruption, and showed the soul to be terrible to Hades and destroying the power of death. For that which is composite cannot be split by that which is not composite; but on the contrary, it rather joins the composite and couples that which has been separated, and recalls it to life.

Also against those who assert one nature in Christ. From the thirty chapters of Leontius of Byzantium against Severus.

CAP. I.

If those things which are in all respects the same belong to one nature, and these themselves are called one nature, how can things that are not in all respects the same according to nature be of one nature, or be called one nature? ^B But the divinity of Christ and his humanity will never be in any way the same. Therefore, these will not be of one nature, nor will they be called one nature after the conjunction.

CAP. II.

For those of whom there is one nature, the definition is common; and for those for whom there is a common definition, they are of the same essence. But the divinity of Christ will never be of the same essence as his humanity. Therefore, the definition of these is never one. Moreover, where there is never one definition, of these the natures are clearly always different.

CAP. III.

If those who say "from divinity and humanity" also say "from two natures," and it seems to them that both signify the same thing; how, if they say "in divinity and humanity" after the conjunction, will they not be compelled by the things conceded by themselves to say "in two natures"? ^D For in this case, too, that which is signified from both is the same.

CAP. IV.

If those who say Christ is "from two natures" say he is from divinity and humanity, and those who say "from divinity and humanity" say he is from two natures, and they speak of divinity and humanity even after the conjunction: therefore they themselves also concede two natures of Christ after the conjunction. But if they deny two natures in Christ after the conjunction,

^A they therefore deny that Christ has both divinity and humanity after the conjunction.

CAP. V.

If they acknowledge that the things which met together in the conjunction are unconfused, and they themselves also say that the things that met together are two: why do they not acknowledge as two, even after the conjunction, those things which were not confused in the conjunction? But if they do acknowledge them as two, why do they refuse to number them, whose properties—which remain unconfused even after the conjunction—they recognize? "For let them," says the divine Basil, "also number what they confess."

CHAPTER VIII.

If number in every way and altogether brings about division, then number will be the cause of division, not division the cause of number. And of the two, one or the other ^B is necessary: either that none of the things which are conjoined be numbered, or that none of the things which are numbered be conjoined. But is it not ridiculous to attribute such power to number, since every number constitutes not the nature or the qualitative relation of things, but their quantity?

CAP. IX.

If, according to the divine Gregory, the economy of the Savior is the reverse of the Trinity, and yet we always confess three persons and one nature in the theology, how shall we not grant two natures and one person in the economy of the Savior, if the reverse of the whole ^C is entirely a reciprocal inversion?

CAP. XII.

If "another" and "another" (masculine) are pronouns of persons, as the Theologian says, but "other" and "other" (neuter) are pronouns of natures, and the former is always in the theology, it follows that the latter is always in the economy; therefore the natures are always, since their pronouns are also always.

CAP. XIV.

If the simple nature is not the same as the composite nature, and the simple nature of the Word signifies one nature only, then the composite nature of Christ, according to their opinion, does not signify one nature. But if, ^D as they wish, the simple and the composite signify one nature for Christ, let them demonstrate the difference between the composite nature of Christ as they conceive it, and the simple nature of the Word itself.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Things that are properly contrary to each other oppose the whole negation to the whole affirmation. For example, if the affirmation says: "Paul is an apostle," the negation will say: "Paul is not an apostle." In this way, the one nature is contrary to the two natures. For if Christ is one nature, he is not two; and if he is two, he is not one. But those who, while saying "one," add something else, are not speaking in a contrary way, but differently and by circumlocution. And the confession of the two natures is established for them from the name and the definition: from the name of the nature of the Word, and from the definition of [the nature of the ensouled flesh, possessed of a rational and intellectual soul. For the definition of human nature—]

Why then do those who speak of the definition of the nature reject the title of it? Let them say, if they are able to perceive what is consistent for themselves and what is contradictory.

CAP. XIX.

^A Simple nature is not of the same essence as composite nature; but the nature of the Father is simple, and that of Christ is composite; therefore the nature of Christ is not of the same essence as the nature of the Father. And yet they pretend to say that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, and that he is of the same essence as us. Let them say, therefore, whether it is possible that the one, composite nature of Christ, as they themselves say, should be in every respect of the same essence as the Father, and again in every respect of the same essence as us, so that they do not lead us to the same essence that the Father has. But if they shall say that the one nature of Christ is not in every respect of the same essence with the Father and with us, it remains that half of the one nature is of the same essence with the Father, and half is of the same essence with us. But what is this other than to divide the one nature of Christ, as they call it, into the same and a different essence, and into as many parts as complete ^B the one composite nature of Christ? Moreover, it is the impiety of Arius and Apollinarius to deny the perfection of the divinity and humanity of Christ.

CAP. XX.

If Christ, as they themselves also concede, is called God and man even after the conjunction, and these are natures themselves, how are there not two natures in Christ, since the same is not by nature God and man, nor is the nature that is God the same as the nature that is man?

Chapter XXIV.

If, by true reason and the judgment of the holy Fathers, essence differs from person in the same way that the common differs from the own, the one nature of the Word is not said to be one nature with the flesh, but with the Father. For with Him he has the same definition of nature. But if his nature is and is called one with the Father, it will never be called one nature with the flesh. And if it is not said to be one nature at all with the flesh, neither will the flesh be said to be one nature with him. If neither the flesh with the Word, nor the Word with the flesh is said to be one nature, it is certain that ^D there are two natures in Christ.

CHAPTER XXVI.

If all things that are of the same essence are conjoined by the definition of nature, and for that reason are called one nature, whereas those that are of a different essence are conjoined by conjunction, but not by nature; and since conjunction and nature are not the same thing, neither is that which is produced from them the same. But if those things which nature conjoins are called one nature, those things which are joined by conjunction will be said to be one in person, but not one in nature and essence.

CHAPTER XXVII.

^A It is agreed by the common consent of all that this name, "man," signifies nature, but "Paul" or "Peter" signifies the person. But as the blessed Cyril teaches, this name "Christ" has neither the force of a definition, nor does it declare the essence of anyone, as does "man," "horse," or "ox," or anything whatever that falls under the same species. Therefore, it is not the same thing to speak of man simply and to speak of Christ. How then do you transfer the example of man, by which nature is signified, to the person of Christ, when the name "Christ," according to the doctrine of the teacher, does not signify nature, but person? But if you say that he and the other Fathers use the example of a man to explain the reason of the union, they do not take "man" simply, but "a certain man." Now, this is a person. ^B Observe, moreover, that in the argument he also describes him by using the example of two goats. Just as, therefore, there it does not bring in the example regarding the hypostases of the goats, but has the reference to the difference between the living and the slaughtered one; so also in this place, the likeness of a certain man is taken, not for the abolition of the natures, but that the unity of the person might be shown. That, moreover, a certain or singular man, according to the opinion of the Fathers, consists of two, and is two natures—insofar as he is soul and body—can be understood from their writings in many places.

Item against those who assert one nature in Christ, from the book of Anastasius, monk of Sinai, which is entitled "Guide."

Severus, bishop of Antioch, expelled from there, came to Alexandria and composed a book full of every blasphemy, in which he opposes the Council of Chalcedon and sets forth the dogma stating that Christ became one nature after the union. This book he entitled *Philalethes* ("Lover of Truth"), which the Severians and Jacobites, and those who were trained by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Theodosius and Timothy, and the rest of the Monophysites in Syria and Egypt, prize above the Gospels. ^C It is not, however, to be disputed with such Monophysites before they have defined what nature is, and what essence is, and what person is, and what hypostasis is. For because Christ is one person, they say that for the one person there is one nature, and they constitute person and nature as the same thing. Let it therefore be asked of them: when some man dies, does nature die, or the person? They will not answer that nature dies. Therefore nature and person are not the same. Furthermore, since there are many and even innumerable persons of men, will they say that there are also many and innumerable natures of men? But yet there is one nature of men. Therefore person and nature are not the same.

Of the same.

Those who contend that there is one nature in Christ say that Athanasius wrote to the Emperor Jovian that the Word became flesh, so that the flesh might also become Word. We respond, first, that it is not certain ^D whether these words are Athanasius's, since in many places...

that it is impossible and absolutely inconceivable for flesh to be converted into the nature of the Word. Then, acknowledging his pious intention from his other writings, we concede that these are indeed the words of Athanasius. For he took "the Word" to stand for God, since the Word is also God; as if to say, that God became flesh, so that the flesh might also become God, not by nature, but by the union in person and by deification, if I may so express it. ^A They say also that the Theologian Gregory said of the Lord’s deified flesh: "It has become that which anointed it, and, to speak boldly, at the same time it is God." He did not say, "It has become divinity," but "God," and that not by nature, but by deification. For the same writer says again: "And this, he says, is God by deification." And again in another discourse: "Even if the two are one, yet they are not one by nature, but by conjunction. ^B For iron, when it is joined to fire, is often called fire, yet not by nature, but by the heating; for it does not cease to be iron." They say that Gregory of Nyssa also said: "Just as a drop of vinegar cast into the sea no longer retains the properties of the vinegar, but is altered and mingled into the properties of the sea’s waters, so too that most holy body, being mingled with the divinity, is no longer in the properties of flesh." Let them learn from us that this holy man did not teach a confusion and commixture of the two natures, but that after the resurrection that body of the Lord ^C is no longer corruptible, nor fluid, nor subject to fatigue, nor needy, nor mortal, but has been changed from what consists of matter, what is passible and coarse and mortal, into that which is remote from matter, which is impassible and subtle, and immortal—not, however, into that which lacks circumscription and form, or which does not fall under touch and sight, or which is uncreated, and whatever else is proper to the divinity. Otherwise, how would it have been perceived by the disciples after the resurrection? Or how would He Himself have said: "Palpate, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me having"? How would He have shown ^D the marks of the nails to Thomas, and done other things of this kind to ensure the proof of the truth and of His undisguised incarnation and becoming man? The divine Gregory used the example of the drop of vinegar and the sea as an illustration, wishing to indicate the lowliness of human nature and the infinite magnitude of the divinity, and that it has been deified through the union of the person, and that insofar as it was receptive, it partook of the union with the Word in person, so that we might learn the uniqueness of the person of the two natures; but insofar as it was incapable, it remained without a share in it, so that the distinctness of the two natures might be preserved. For if he did not know that there are two natures in Christ, how could he have said, writing against Eunomius, that it is one nature of Christ that is buffeted during the passion, and another that is glorious from eternity?

Of the same. If Christ is only divinity, as the human na-

nature ^A has been absorbed by the divine, why, hanging on the cross, did He not have appearance or beauty? And lying in the sepulcher, why did He not have a soul? And descending into the underworld, why did He not have a body? For the sepulcher received his body alone, and the underworld his soul alone, since he did not cast off either the material and visible and tangible nature of the body, or the properties of the soul, although the divinity was in both.

Of the same. If the nature of Christ is divinity alone, as you say, how is it that Christ, who is everywhere according to the nature of His divinity, said to His disciples, *Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice that I was not there*? And how did the angel say about His body, *He is risen; He is not here*? ^B

Of the same. For this reason, they say, we do not speak of two natures in Christ, because everything that we confess in Christ must necessarily be confessed by us of all the holy Trinity. But what? Do you not confess in Christ the assumption of flesh, and the birth, and all that is said of the divine incarnation? It remains, therefore, that you must confess these things also of the whole holy Trinity.

Of the same. If we ask them by what nature Christ spoke words befitting a human, they—avoiding saying "nature" regarding the human in Christ—take refuge in saying "by humanity," "by the assumption," "by that which was seen," "by the body," "by the flesh," and anything else of that sort. But if we ask further: "Why do you avoid calling it 'nature' regarding that which was assumed?" they answer that it is so that, confessing two natures in Christ, we might not be found saying two persons; for there is no nature without a person, they say. But all who speak of two natures in Christ are Nestorians, as they divide the one Christ into two persons. Now, therefore, let us bring forward to them the testimonies of the holy Fathers, which ^C explicitly confess two natures in Christ.

Testimonies of the holy Fathers concerning the two natures of Christ.

Of the great Gregory the Wonderworker, from the discourse on the specific faith: "And He is true God, who, while being devoid of flesh, appeared in the flesh, not having two persons, but two natures."

Of the first ecumenical council, from the Exposition against Paul of Samosata: "These things have been explained and declared, not that the one, indivisible person might be divided, but that the natures of the flesh and the Word might be clearly shown without confusion." ^D

Of Athanasius of Alexandria, from the discourse on the faith: "For of His essences, one is without beginning and eternal, which cannot be comprehended by the mind; the other has come to be in time," and the rest.

^A From the book *On the Faith* by Justin the Philosopher and Martyr: "Tell us, you who pretend to be students of the Christian religion, why you seek and allege these things, with the two natures in Christ removed."

From the epistle of Basil the Great to the Sozopolitans: "If, therefore, anyone dares to say that the two natures in Christ were mixed together, and that the body with its bones was entirely converted into the dignity of the divine nature," and the rest.

From the epistle of Gregory the Theologian to Cledonius: "For there are two natures, God and man."

From the same author, from the second oration *On the Son*: "But this is the proof: when the natures are separated by the mind, the names are separated as well."

From the epistle of Amphilochius of Iconium to Seleucus: "Thus I confess Christ, the Son of God, to be God and man, one Son from two natures, passible and impassible." And a little further on: "I confess, therefore, one Son and his two natures." And after a few words intervening: "The nature that was assumed suffers; but the nature that assumed it remains impassible."

^C From the oration of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, *Against Apollinarius*: "Others have appeared who say that the Lord’s flesh and his divinity are of one nature. What hell vomited forth such an impious curse?"

From the same author, *To the Emperor Gratian*: "Let us preserve the distinction between the divinity and the flesh. For there is one who speaks in both, the Son of God, since in Him is both natures."

From the oration of Gregory of Nyssa *Against Apollinarius*: "If, therefore, the nature of the flesh and the divinity is considered in two contrary properties—I speak of the flesh and the divinity—how is it that the two are one?"

From the first epistle of John Chrysostom to Acacius: "He has made the two together one Son, one person, which is recognized by an indivisible reason without confusion, not in one single nature, but in two perfect ones."

From the same epistle: "One only-begotten Son, not divided into a pair of sons, but yet preserving in Himself the unconfused properties of the two inseparable natures."

From the same author’s oration *Against the Robber*: "There are two natures and actions in Christ, but one person."

From the second epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to Succensus: "After the union, however, we do not separate the natures from one another." And a little further on: "We say that the two natures are united." And again, progressing further, he interprets in what sense he said elsewhere that one nature of God the Word had become flesh: "For if—"

^A he says, "we held our peace about the nature of the Word, and did not add that he took flesh, but as it were left the dispensation out, then perhaps they might rightly ask where the perfection of his humanity was, or how our substance subsisted in him; since both the perfection in humanity and the declaration of our own substance are supplied by saying that he took flesh, let them cease holding up a reed against themselves."

From the same epistle: "Most rightly and most prudently your perfection sets forth a discourse concerning the saving passion and death, denying that the Only-Begotten Son of God himself, insofar as he is understood to be and is God, suffered in his own nature the things that belong to the body, but rather confirming that he bore them in his earthly nature."

From the same author’s discourse to the Alexandrians: "A commixtion brings about the destruction of natures, but the ineffable union, which those who think rightly confess, preserves both natures without confusion."

From the same discourse: "The two natures having different essences are preserved in one Christ, the Son of God, and they are neither confused, nor lost, nor divided."

From the same author's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: "And we do not by any means say that a certain confusion has occurred in the natures, such that the nature of the Word has been converted into the nature of man, and the nature of man into the nature of the Word." ^B

From the same epistle: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, separating the natures from one another."

These, then, are the testimonies of the holy Fathers concerning the two natures of Christ, to omit the many others that there are. But the godless Severus, in his exposition of the faith, speaks after this manner: "But to speak of two natures in Christ is to be avoided by every reasoning, even if it has been said without reproach by many holy Fathers." And a little later: "And do not say again that some of the holy Fathers made use of the expression 'two natures.' For they did so without reproach and without fault, as we have said before. ^C But since the time of the holy Cyril, when the plague of the empty words of Nestorius was feeding upon the Churches, this expression was disapproved."

Bravo, you execrable man! Since you have confessed, even if unwillingly, that many of the holy Fathers used the expression "two natures," fearing the manifest truth as it appears, show us now at what time and by which holy Fathers this expression was disapproved, and how it is that Christ had two natures before Nestorius, but after Nestorius the two have become one, O most inept and inconsistent man. ^D

^A Leontius of Byzantium: What blasphemies Severus, and those who followed him in asserting one nature in Christ, cast at the Council of Chalcedon.

They say that the Council of Chalcedon ought not to be accepted, because those who celebrated it were changeable and inconstant. For the very same men, they say, having condemned Eutyches in Byzantium, received him in Ephesus along with Dioscorus, casting out Flavian. And again, the same men in Chalcedon accepted Flavian, but condemned Dioscorus. We answer that many people often change their opinion for certain reasons, which seem reasonable to them. But even if, let us say, five, or ten, or even more of the six hundred and thirty had been changeable, as you claim, the council of the six hundred men ought not for that reason to be rejected, nor should the votes of so many be set aside because of a few, especially since the same men sat along with Dioscorus at Ephesus, and yet you do not reject the Council of Ephesus, which Dioscorus headed, because of them.

Again they say, "If, according to the word of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith, why do you not receive him?" We answer that he was indeed not deposed on account of the faith—for that reason, he did not come to the council, so that the matters concerning him would not be examined; for if he had come and an examination had taken place, he would have been condemned as a heretic, for such he was. But because, having been summoned a third time, he did not appear, and they made this the cause of his deposition, for this reason Anatolius said that he was not deposed on account of the faith.

Again they say that the same council received heretics, namely Theodoret and Ibas. We answer that they were not received before they had pronounced Nestorius to be detestable and accursed. But again they object: "Why did they not require Theodoret to condemn also his own writings against Cyril?" We answer regarding this that they ought not to have laid this charge against the council, but against St. Cyril. For having made peace with the Orientals and with Theodoret himself, he did not require him to condemn the writings he had composed against him. Therefore, what St. Cyril did not do, the council is not to be blamed for not doing. Although, what he did not do, the council did do, when it required him to detest Nestorius.

But if we were to concede that they were heretics, not even so is the council to be rejected on their account. For behold, the Council of Nicaea also accepted seven heretics—Arians who had been such beforehand, and remained so afterwards—and yet the council is not called that of the one hundred and eleven, but is called that of the three hundred and eighteen. Moreover, Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and other capable bishops who were found at the Council of Ephesus with Dioscorus were also present at Chalcedon, and they do not for that reason reject that council, but they vehemently approve and embrace it.

Let those who slander the Council of Chalcedon hear how many heresies its decrees condemned, and what dogmas it established.

Titulus XVI

^AWe all teach in unison that one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is to be confessed. By these words, the mouths of Paul of Samosata and Nestorius are stopped, since they worship the man, and dare to divide Him into two Sons, calling the Word the Son by nature, and again calling Christ Jesus the Son by grace, having attained the status of sonship through union and conjunction with the Son who is such by nature. They do not confess that He is one and the same Son, who was without flesh before the descent and incarnation, and the self-same became flesh after the descent and incarnation wrought for us.

^B“Perfect in divinity, and the same perfect in humanity.” By saying “perfect in divinity,” it rejects the execrable blasphemy of the Arians. For they say that Christ is God, but they dogmatize that He is an imperfect God and inferior to the Father. But by saying “and the same perfect in humanity,” it refutes the folly not only of the Arians but also of the Apollinarians. For Arius babbles that the Word assumed flesh entirely devoid of soul, while Apollinarius contends that He assumed a soul, but without a mind, so that both are condemned as having foolishly taught that the Lord’s humanity was imperfect.

^C“The same truly God, and truly man.” These things are stated because of Manes, who confesses Him to be only God and not man; and because of Paul of Samosata and Artemas, who deny His divinity and declare Him to be a mere man consisting of a rational soul and body. By this, it also fights against Apollinarius, who says that our Lord Jesus Christ did not possess a rational soul, but only a vital one; and it also opposes Manes and Valentinus, who deny the incarnation.

“Consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity.” This is because of Eunomius and Arius, who impiously proclaim the Word of the Father, the Only-Begotten, to be a creature and a slave.

^D“The same consubstantial with us according to the humanity.” This is because of Marcion, Manes, Valentinus, and Eutyches, who say that He appeared as a man only in semblance and mere imagination, and not in truth, and do not confess that He became a man by human nature.

“Begotten of the Father before the ages according to the divinity.” This is because of Simon, Eunomius, and Arius, who deny His birth from the Father before the ages.

“And in the last days, the same, because of us and for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin and Theotokos, according to the humanity.” This is because of Photinus, Theodore, Diodorus, and Nestorius, who say that He is a man who was deified by virtue and progress, and that He is not God existing from God, and that He did not, out of love for mankind, unchangeably become man.

who is known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, by no means with the difference of the natures taken away on account of the flesh that was assumed, but with the property of each nature preserved, and converging into one person and one hypostasis. ^A On account of Asterius, Apollinarius, and Eutyches, who say that the different natures, namely of the Word and of his flesh, have departed from their own property and have become one nature, it follows from their opinion that in Christ neither is that which is passible preserved, on account of his impassible divinity, nor is that which is impassible preserved, on account of the passibility of his humanity.

TITLE XVII

Those who are called Aphthartodocetae after Julian and Gaianus, while they agree with the disciples of Severus in other doctrines, in this alone do they differ from them: that whereas the Severians establish a difference in Christ after the union, the Julianists and Gaianists not only deny the difference of the two natures in Christ, but also maintain that the body of the Lord was incorruptible from the very moment of its formation, from which fact they have obtained their name. And they say that the Lord indeed endured afflictions and torments, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, and the rest, yet that he did not endure them in the same way that we do. For we, they say, endure these things by ^C natural necessity, but Christ endured all things voluntarily. For he was not subject to the laws of nature. We reply that we do not say that Christ endured afflictions and torments against his will, but that he voluntarily submitted to the laws of nature, just as we do. For the blessed Athanasius, explaining that passage, *Now is my soul troubled* (Joan. XII, 27), says: "Now," he says, "that is, when he willed it. For he did not say that what was not was as if it were, as if the things that were being said were happening in opinion and appearance, but not in reality and truth. For all things were brought about in nature and truth." The Theologian Gregory likewise says: "Because," he says, "he allowed time for nature when he willed, so that it might desire what is proper to it." But the admirable Cyril ^D says that he permitted it to the flesh to pass through the laws of nature. And elsewhere he said: "He permits it to the body and to his humanity to suffer those things2 which belong to nature, so that he may demonstrate that he truly bore flesh and became a human being, as the Scriptures testify." Wherefore, if according to the purpose of the God-bearing Fathers he suffered in the same way as we do, even if voluntarily and when he willed, how can we say that the body which suffered was incorruptible, and not rather corruptible, just as ours are? But they answer again: "Just as you say that after the resurrection the body of Christ is incorruptible, and yet is of the same essence as we are, so do we also say that even before the resurrection it was incorruptible, and yet is of the same essence with us." We, however, say that even if we confess it to be incorruptible after the resurrection, we do not say it is incorruptible by nature, but by grace. But if they were to say that

it was incorruptible by grace even before the resurrection, we shall answer that this is not allowed ^A because of the things which are said concerning Christ. For before the resurrection, He is said to have hungered and thirsted and suffered other things; and how could the one who has suffered these things be incorruptible? But after the resurrection, He suffered none of these. Wherefore it is clear that before the resurrection the body was corruptible, but after the resurrection it was incorruptible. For even if He is said to have eaten after the resurrection, He did this for the sake of the dispensation, not because He was truly hungry, but in order to show to His disciples that it was He Himself who had risen from the dead, just as He is also said to have shown them the prints of the nails. Yet we shall not rise again possessing any of the sufferings from before the resurrection. But Christ is the first-fruits of our resurrection from the dead, and yet He was found possessing them, as it is clear that this happened for ^B the sake of the dispensation. Indeed, the Scripture does not even say that He hungered, but that He ate. One ought to observe that they bring forward certain citations from the Fathers which call the body of Christ incorruptible, just as the blessed Cyril also said that the flesh of the Word did not undergo corruption. Whenever, therefore, they bring forward such citations, the meanings of "corruption" must be distinguished, and those meanings that are appropriate must be applied to the body of Christ.

Of Damascene against the same. Chapter 92.

The name "corruption" has a double meaning. For it signifies these human ^C passions—hunger, thirst, toil, the piercing of the nails, death (that is, the separation of the soul from the body), and the like. In accordance with this meaning, we speak of the Lord's body as corruptible. For He voluntarily took on all these things. But "corruption" also signifies the complete dissolution and destruction of the body into the elements from which it was composed, which by many is called "perishing." The Lord's body did not experience this, as the prophet David says: "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption." To say, therefore, according to the raving Julian and Gaianus, that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the resurrection in the first sense of corruption is impious. For if it is incorruptible, it is not of ^D the same essence as we are, and the things which the Gospel narrates—namely, hunger, thirst, the nails, the piercing of the side, and death—have come to pass by opinion and not in truth. If they have come to pass by opinion, the mystery of the dispensation is a delusion and a sham, and He became man by opinion and not in truth; and we have been saved by opinion and not in truth. But away with them! Let those who say these things be deprived of salvation. But according to the second meaning of corruption, we confess the body of the Lord to be incorruptible, that is, free from perishing, just as the God-bearing Fathers have handed down to us. However, after the resurrection of the Savior from the dead, we speak of the body of the Lord as incorruptible even according to the first meaning. For the Lord, through His own body, [effected for] our body both resurrection and...

we call the body. For the Lord bestowed the resurrection and the subsequent incorruption upon our body through his own body, having himself become the first-fruits of the resurrection, of incorruption, and of impassibility for us. For "this corruptible must put on incorruption," says the divine Apostle ^A.

*Another, against the same.* Corruption, in one sense, is the injury of the soul from the death of the soul—that is, from sin. Corruption, in another sense, is the injury of the body from the death of the body—that is, from putrefaction, which is more properly called decay. Corruption also signifies bodily or natural affections which are exempt from blame, such as hunger, thirst, toil, fear, the piercing of nails, death, and many things such as these that precede it. Now, as far as the first and second corruptions are concerned, we say that the Lord’s body was incorruptible; for it neither admitted sin, nor was it corrupted after the separation of the soul. For, "You will not," he says, "give your Holy One to see corruption." ^B But as far as the third meaning of corruptible is concerned, even this was such, for it was subject to the natural passions. After the resurrection, however, it became incorruptible according to this meaning as well.

TITLE XVIII

The Virgin bore for us Emmanuel, consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; impassible according to his divinity, passible according to his humanity. For even if God the Word appropriates the passions of his own body and refers them to himself, yet he himself has remained within the bounds of impassibility. And if you hear him saying, "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to buffeting, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting," ^C do not suppose that he suffered anything in his own nature, but rather that he attributed the scourges of his own body to himself. For to whom the body belongs, to him, by right, all things that concern it—apart from sin alone—can be ascribed. Since, therefore, the Word, having assumed humanity, remained divinely impassible, even though by making the things of his own flesh his own he is necessarily said to suffer according to the flesh, he was nevertheless far from suffering insofar as he is God. They do not think, therefore, that it is for God to be maintained so that he does not suffer, yet it is also for him, by suffering for us in the flesh—insofar as, being God by nature, he became flesh or perfect man—that he is ^D spoken of as suffering. For who was he who spoke to the Father in heaven with these words: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me;

burnt offerings and those for sin you did not seek? Then I said, 'Behold I come to do, O God, your will'?" For he says that he, who as God is outside a body, had a body prepared for himself, so that by offering this for us, he might heal us all by his own stripes, according to the voice of the prophet. ^A

From the same, from the letter to Acacius concerning the scapegoat.

This was also prefigured in the Law. For it is written in Leviticus: "And he shall take the two goats, and set them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of testimony; and Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and one lot for the scapegoat. And he shall bring forward the one for sin. And the goat upon which the lot of the scapegoat came, he shall set it alive before the Lord, to make atonement over it, so as to send it away into the sending away, and shall let it go into the wilderness. And he shall slaughter the goat that is for sin, which is for the people, before the Lord, and shall bring ^B some of its blood inside the veil, and shall do with its blood in the manner he did the blood of the calf, and shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar, before the face of the propitiatory. And after other things: And he shall bring near the live goat, and Aaron shall lay his hands upon the head of the live goat." Come, therefore, let us remove the shadow of the Law and see the naked truth. For he ordered that two goats be brought, and two lots be cast upon them, so that one of the goats should be named Lord, and the other scapegoat. Thus the names given to the goats are Lord and scapegoat. But by both, the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, is signified; and in what manner, we shall say. A goat was sacrificed for sin; this was a type of Christ sacrificed for our sins, according to the Scriptures; for this cause we say that he was also called sin. For the all-wise Paul writes that he who knew not sin, ^C for our sake God—the Father, clearly—made sin. And we do not say that Christ became a sinner, God forbid, but that the Father made the Just One, or rather Justice itself, a victim for the transgressions of the world; and he was reckoned among the lawless, enduring the sentence most appropriate to the lawless. For the judgment of death hung over those on earth, because of the transgression in Adam, and because of the sin that from him reigned over us until now. But the Word of God the Father, who is abundant in gentleness and philanthropy, became flesh—that is, man, similar to us who are under sin—and he underwent our lot. For as the most excellent Paul writes: ^D "By the grace of God, for every

person he tasted death," and he made his own soul a compensation for the lives of all, and he died for the sake of all, so that all might live for God, being sanctified and brought to life through his blood, and justified freely by his grace. For as the blessed evangelist John says: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin." Therefore, the name "Lord" was given to the slaughtered goat, and it received the slaughter by lot, and it was a holy and sacred sacrifice, bearing the figure of Christ who, as I said, died not for himself but for us, and who sanctified the Church with his own blood. "For he shall slaughter the goat that is for sin, which is for the people, before the Lord, and he shall bring of its blood within the veil, and shall sprinkle its blood upon the propitiatory." For Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, having found eternal redemption and sanctifying, as I said, a truer tabernacle, that is, the Church, and all those who are in her. For the divine Paul writes: "Therefore Jesus, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate." ^A Observe again how Immanuel, although he became subject to death in the flesh, is nevertheless above death and sin. For he was "free among the dead," that is, untainted by sins, and not liable to the judgment that is upon us. And we see this in the other goat, the living one, which is sent away. For we must observe him in his suffering as man, or as suffering divinely, and in his death in the flesh as stronger than death; and that he did not, according to the suspicious belief of the Jews, remain with us in the tomb, nor was he, like others, a captive within the gates of Hades. For as his disciple says: "His soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption"; for he rose again having despoiled Hades. ^B Observe that, although the first goat was the one slaughtered, he everywhere calls the other one "living." For in both was prefigured the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as suffering in his own flesh and yet outside of suffering as he is in death, and beyond death. For the Word of God was alive, and while his holy flesh experienced death, he remained incapable of suffering, even though he took to himself the suffering of his own body and referred it to himself. "He shall bring the living goat," he says, "and Aaron shall place his hands upon the head of the living goat, and he shall confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and he shall place them upon the head of the living goat."

^C *From the book of Anastasius the Monk of Sinai, entitled The Guide, the testimonies which the Theodosians and all those of the same mind with them bring forward, wishing to show that the divinity of the Son is capable of suffering, for which reasons they were called Theopaschites. And these also are a sect of the Monophysites, who contend that there is only one nature in Christ.*

^D Of the Apostle: "For if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Of Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch

Of Saint Gregory the Theologian

Of Julius of Rome

Of Saint Cyril against Nestorius

Of Melito of Sardis

They bring forward many other things of this kind; but for all of them one reply will suffice, says the Theologian Gregory: Ensure that you do not let your intellect falter ^B when you hear of the blood and passion and death of God. Do not be carried away impiously, as if you were his advocate. For since the hypostasis of the Son and God has become the very hypostasis of the assumed nature, he himself is said to do and suffer all things; and he performs things that are divine according to his divine nature, and does and suffers things that are human according to his human nature. And in another way: since the hypostasis of the two natures of Christ is one, they often communicate their proper appellations to one another by reason of the hypostatic union, and the extreme appropriation resulting therefrom. When the problem is interpreted and resolved in this way, nothing absurd follows. But according to the assumption of the ^C Theopaschites, if the Son suffered and died according to his own divine nature, the Holy Trinity became a duality, the Son having died; and so there was a duality until his resurrection from the dead. And who would not pity them for their ignorance, and such rusticity and irrationality? They say that the soul of the assumed nature is immortal, but that the God who assumed it is mortal; they say the angels are immortal, but that their Creator and Lord is mortal.

To these things, it is necessary to add what the Great Athanasius says against those who say that the Word suffered "in an impassible manner."

Before I hear the word "suffered," the thought of "passion" flees from the mind. For the addition of "impassibly" does not allow ^D "suffered" to remain. The argument has an unstable footing. If he suffered, how in an impassible manner? If in an impassible manner, how did he suffer? Are we to speak ineffably, so that we may be understood unintelligently? Who has seen one falling without falling, rising without rising, laboring without labor, being wise without intelligence, giving aid without aiding, or setting free without setting free, so that we may also admit that he "suffered in an impassible manner"? What a magnitude of stupidity is this, what a stupor of the mind, that when one is speaking about a most venerable mystery, one utters words that provoke a great laugh; to suggest a reason that proves you are devoid of reason; to answer in such a way that you act more foolishly than if you answered nothing at all; to provide an interpretation that gives birth to a greater doubt? Why was no one of the saints able to ascend to such a height of contemplation, or to utter that oft-repeated phrase, "He suffered impassibly"? Paul, who went up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words in Paradise...

did not say: "He suffered impassibly"; but, "He learned," he says, "from the things which he suffered, and having been tempted in all things according to the likeness, without sin." ^A By saying "having been tempted in all things according to the likeness," he banished far away the folly of such statements. For he who has been tempted in all things according to the likeness either has not suffered impassibly—that he might preserve "in all things according to the likeness"—or he shows that others also have suffered impassibly, in order to save the likeness to them. Therefore, one must confess either that the Saviour also suffered truly, or that the others ^B also suffered impassibly, according to whose likeness the Lord is proclaimed to have been tempted. And what proof of patience is there from suffering impassibly? How is it called the patience of Christ, if He did not receive the sensation of pains? And how is His ineffable and incomparable benevolence toward men shown, if He endured torture and death without pain? Who would not choose to suffer not only for friends, but even for enemies, if it were permitted to suffer impassibly? Why did the Lord say: "The spirit indeed is willing, ^C but the flesh is weak," if He were about to undergo the passion without pain? Why did He cry to the Father: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"? For what reason did He offer prayers and supplications with a strong cry and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death? Either, therefore, all must be believed to be true, and the passion must be accounted true, or, if it is said that the passion happened impassibly, it is necessary to consider everything to be a figure, an opinion, and a fantasy. If, therefore, He did not suffer truly, neither did He rise ^D truly. If He did not truly taste of death, He did not truly extinguish the stings of death. We are still in our sins. Death still reigns over all. We are still bereft of the inheritance. For if death is fictitious, then the testament is false, and the inheritance is not true. The Law declares these things to us: "A testament," it says, "is ratified upon the dead." If, therefore, He who instituted the New Testament for us has not truly died, the things contained in the Testament are void, and those who are called heirs are rejected. But away with such folly, good man. For the testator has truly died, and the Testament has been ratified, and the inheritance is set before those who believe, and punishment is prepared for the slanderers.

Of the same, against those who say that God suffered, as He willed.

Since they could not show the nature to be passible, they did not fear to slander the will. And when they are asked concerning nature, they answer concerning will. If nature is capable of passion, let will have its place. But if, even should the "willing" be granted a thousand times, it is impossible for the law of nature to be overturned; how is it not madness to say, "He suffered, as He willed"? For who among those of sound mind does not know that the will must be in agreement with nature, and that the one should not incline to one side, while the other—

^A inclines in another direction; but rather that nature should remain within its own boundaries, and the will should desire what is fitting and congruent to nature? For if one should say that the one has something and the other desires something else, he introduces strife and war, since the will desires what it should not perform, and nature receives what it is not its character to receive. That which has a nature liable to suffering, whether it wishes or does not wish, is subject to the condition of suffering. But that which by nature is removed from the condition of suffering—even if one were to concede that it wills what indeed cannot happen—who would induce it to receive that which is alien to its nature? Every genus of living creature keeps the law of its own essence inviolable; and just as it was created from the beginning, so it lives perpetually, and in no way does the will alter the order. Although a man might wish a thousand times to have wings, yet his will is empty, for nature is superior. Likewise, if any of the animals that lack reason should wish to have a soul endowed with reason, its will shall be mocked, and not fulfilled. Furthermore, since every nature is free, and is superior to any contrary will, shall the nature of God, which alone is immutable and immortal, have a contrary will, and succumb to the necessity of the will? O ^B wonder! That nature which keeps all natures within their own boundaries so easily departs from the boundaries of impassibility; and it, which created all things, does not even possess as much as it has bestowed upon them. And it has not been said: "God suffered." Nor has it been written: "as He willed." We have heard that He did whatsoever He willed, but that He suffered as He willed, we have nowhere learned. Why then do they bring forward an uncertain thing to prove an uncertain thing? These are proofs of madness, not testimonies of truth. But the Lord Christ suffered in His mortal flesh, not according to the Word of God ^C.

Of the same, against those who say: "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Again, here, there is much that is irrational, and even more that is absurd. For it is irrational to say that one thing suffers through another, and it is absurd to say that "the Word suffered." Being unable to say this stripped of its covering, they added "in the flesh," covering the unseemliness of this notion with a deceitful mask, as if covering an ugly face with a false mask. If the Word suffered, He suffered in Himself. If another is the one that suffered, it is nothing to the Word. But to say, "The Word suffered in the flesh," is unscriptural, inappropriate, ^D groundless, and inconsistent. Neither does that which is passible suffer through another, nor does that which is impassible suffer by means of another. Neither is the Word passible through the flesh, nor is the flesh impassible through the Word; but the flesh suffers according to its own nature, and it is the property of the nature of the Word that it does not suffer. If, therefore, He suffers in the flesh, what should we say about the flesh itself? Does it suffer through the Word, or does it not suffer? If it does not suffer, then to it was granted to be impassible. But if it does suffer, then two suffer; if indeed, as they themselves say, the Word suffers in the flesh, and the flesh suffers through the Word. How, then, they might perhaps say, is it written: "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh"? Say that Christ suffered, and the statement will be consistent.

For he who says "God the Word" signifies a simple nature; but he who names "Christ" reveals the conjunction of the two natures. And so it is consistent to say: ^A Christ suffered, because this name signifies both at once, namely the impassible Word and the passible flesh which tasted of death. Since even Paul did not say, "Of whom is God apart," but, "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all," in order to show that he who is mentioned is from the Israelites according to the flesh, but according to his divinity from the eternal Father. He did not say, "Of whom is God according to the flesh." Say the same thing yourself, and I am persuaded: "Christ suffered according to the flesh." But if you say, "God suffered in the flesh," teach me clearly: is God and flesh the same by nature, or is one thing one thing and another another? If they are the same, God suffered by himself—for you say the flesh is the same as God. But if one is one and another is another, how does this suffer through that, when every nature suffers by itself and not through another substance? A man does not suffer by a horse. A soul does not die by the flesh, but the flesh is dissolved, while the soul is separated. ^B Yet it is said, "A man is dead," which signifies both soul and flesh, and it is understood as being dead according to what is capable of it—that is, according to the flesh, and not according to the immortal soul. Therefore, no one has ever said that the soul of such-and-such a person is dead "in the flesh," but rather, "Such-and-such a person is dead," he who consists of soul and body. But such an expression is nowhere to be found in Scripture declaring that the soul is immortal even after death. But that "Christ suffered" is proclaimed openly everywhere: "Our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed for us." If Christ is passible, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." The cross of Christ, the body of Christ, the blood of Christ. How do they overlook so great a cloud of witnesses, and not observe that the holy and great choir of Fathers at Nicaea, ^C immediately after the confession of God and the Father, set down the name of the Lord Christ, and "into one Lord Jesus Christ," and thereafter added both the lofty things of his divinity and the matters concerning his economy of humanity, as if this name alone appropriately and suitably embraces such different things, just as the blessed Paul himself testifies: "No one," he says, "can lay any foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Let us not forsake the foundation which truly receives everything belonging to both natures, both the glory and the suffering and death. If you say God only, where will you establish the necessity of the sufferings? If you say man only, where will you place the riches of incomprehensible glory? But it is fitting to say "Christ," who for his part enjoys glory by his divinity, ^D yet sustains torments and death by his united humanity, and through inseparable union works every miracle and bestows every gift upon the faithful. In this way, both the divinity is shown to be impassible, and the suffering real, and the gain of men common, and the argument of the truth clear.

TITLE XIX. Against the Agnoetae, who say that the Son, like the Father, is ignorant of the day and hour of the consummation of the world. By the Great Basil. ^A If the Son does not have the knowledge of all things that the Father has, He lied when He said: "All things that the Father has are mine" (John 16:15), and, "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father" (John 10:15). But if it is one thing to know the Father, and another to know the things of the Father, and it is greater to know the Father—inasmuch as everyone is greater than his own things—then the Son, who knows what is greater (for He says, "No one knows the Father except the Son"), could not have been ignorant of that which is lesser, which is impossible. Therefore, He left it unsaid because it was not expedient for men to hear the time of judgment. For constant expectation renders them more eager to cultivate piety; whereas, if they had known that a long interval of time would pass, they would have become more negligent, in the hope that, even later, if they repented, they might be acceptable. For how is it possible that that hour should be hidden from Him who knows everything even up to that very hour? Furthermore, the Apostle would have spoken in vain: "In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3). Hence, such ignorance must be attributed to the nature of His humanity. ^B

TITLE XX. Against Origen. ^C Who determined that the first-formed man was created incorporeal before the transgression, but that after the fall he was clothed with "garments of skin," that is, with the flesh; and that the soul existed before the body, and the same soul is clothed in many bodies; and that the punishments after the general resurrection will have an end; and that demons will be restored again to their former rank; and that sinful men will be justified; and that the bodies of those who die will not rise again; and that the kingdom of Christ will one day have an end; and he has spoken certain other nonsensical things.

If the first-formed man was incorporeal before the transgression, how did he say, upon seeing the woman brought to him: "This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23)? For clearly, it appears that even before the transgression he possessed both bones and flesh. The Theologian Gregory, knowing this, said: "He is clothed with garments of skin, perhaps with a coarser flesh, and mortal, and similar to ours," teaching that he had indeed possessed flesh before, but of a finer sort, placed between immortality and mortality, and softer; and he tempered his statement with the words "perhaps." ^D

If the soul and body are among those things which are relative—for the soul is the soul of the body, and the body is the body of the soul—and if things which are relative exist simultaneously, neither exists before or after the other. If, regarding the soul and the body, there is no prior or posterior existence, then there will be no migration or transition of one soul into other bodies. This is Pythagorean nonsense and alien to all of divine Scripture.

Scripture is entirely unworthy. For all divine Scripture constantly teaches that every soul belongs to one single body. Among the Gentiles, however, some reduced rational souls to the state of irrational ones, as did Pythagoras and his followers, who lodged them in various irrational beings—swine, dogs, and mice; others, like Porphyry, contended that the souls of irrational beings were gifted with reason, saying that the eagle, the raven, the crow, and many of that kind participate in reason and divination.

If Christ, who is Truth itself, is worthy of belief—for He says: "I am the truth" (John xiv, 6)—then punishments have no end. For when He spoke of the future judgment, and what He would say to those on His right hand and those on His left, He added: "And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. xxv, 46). And again He said: "Their worm shall not die, ^B and their fire shall not be extinguished" (Mark ix, 44). If the punishments of that age are endless, as has been demonstrated, there will be no restoration of demons, nor any recall of sinners.

The resurrection will be a resurrection of bodies lying in the earth, by no means of souls, which subsist—that is, which have their own proper nature, constant and indissoluble according to their own essence. Furthermore, it would be the height of injustice to deprive of the common rewards those bodies which struggled along with the souls in the labors of virtue, while on the other hand not punishing those which sinned together with them, but regarding only the souls—without their accompanying bodies—as worthy of double punishment or double reward. That there will be a resurrection of the body, the Gospels themselves plainly declare, as does the great Paul more extensively in his Epistles.

Daniel, clearly prophesying concerning the kingdom of Christ, said: "His power is an eternal power which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed" (Dan. vii, 14). And Gabriel, after he brought the glad tidings of Christ's generation to the holy Virgin, added: "And of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luc. i, 33). And the holy symbol of our undefiled faith, received and guarded by the seven ecumenical synods, says: "Of whose kingdom there shall be no end," namely, the kingdom of Christ, of whom the discourse treats. How much more worthy of belief, then, are these than Origen, who fabulated that the kingdom of Christ would have an end? ^D

Origen said that God, having proceeded from not creating to creating both rational and sensible [beings], was entirely changed from one thing to another. We, however, say that He was not changed in regard to nature, but in regard to operation; or rather, not even in regard to this. For He always possessed the power of creating and bringing forth, but this power was put into operation when it was fitting for Him. Origen is ancient, to be sure, but he was struck by the anathema of the fifth synod. Wherefore it is fitting that the matters pertaining to him are commemorated here.

TITLE XXI

A natural will is a faculty of that which is by nature, being appetitive, and the cohesive force of all properties that essentially belong to the nature, through which it is ever innate in the naturally willing subject to will. However, to have the capacity to will and the act of willing are not the same, just as having the capacity to speak and the act of speaking are not the same. For the capacity to speak is always present to the speaker, but one does not always speak, ^B since the former pertains to the essence, being held together by the reason of nature, whereas the latter pertains to counsel, being fashioned by the tongue of the one who speaks; so that for the nature it is always the case to have the capacity to speak, but for the person it is the case *how* one speaks, just as it is with the capacity to will and the act of willing. But if the capacity to will and the act of willing are not identical—for the one, as I said, belongs to the essence, while the other belongs to the counsel of the one willing—then the Word incarnate, as man, possessed the capacity to will, being moved and fashioned by His own divine will. For that willing of His, says the great Gregory, was not even contrary to God, since it was entirely deified. And if it was deified, it was deified clearly by [being in] consubstantiality with the One who deifies. But the one who deifies and the one who is deified are altogether two, and not one, and not one by nature, if indeed the deifying and the deified belong to the category of relative terms. But relative things are by nature such that they involve one another and one is conceived ^C along with the other. And a little further on: The Savior, therefore, possessed as man a natural will, fashioned by His own divine will, and not opposing it. For nothing natural is in any way contrary to God, whenever it is not gnomical—where also a personal distinction is considered—if it is indeed according to nature, since the Creator must be held responsible if He made anything that wars against nature. But how did the Word, having become flesh, truly become man, if He were destitute of that which most characterizes nature as rational? For that which is deprived of the movement of the appetitive faculty surely would lack every vital power. And that which does not have a vital power from nature, surely does not have a soul of any kind. Therefore, the Word, by having become flesh, did not merely present the dispensation through an empty guise of flesh, but has filled [humanity] by becoming incarnate according to person, with a nature of flesh ^D intellectually and rationally animated, while not having a natural will as man according to Severus. For if He was truly deficient as man in a natural will, He did not truly become a perfect man, nor did He become man at all. For what is the existence of an imperfect nature, of which there is not even an account? The intention, therefore, for Severus and those around him, is through some deficiency of nature entirely to cast off the nature assumed in the ineffable union, and to confirm the hatred of the fantasy of Manes, the confusion of Apollinarius, and the consubstantiation of Eutyches. For I remember, while living in the island of the Cretans, having heard from certain false bishops who disputed with me from the faction of Severus, that for this reason [they say] two

actions are denied in Christ according to the Tome of Leo, because wills follow from them, from which a dual persona is gathered. If, therefore, as Severus opines, wills are gathered from actions, and persons from wills as things resulting from their own causes, then from the person, ^A of course, the will, and from the will, as he himself argues, the action corresponding to it is gathered. For of those things which are reciprocally related to one another, the conversion is mutual. Wherefore, if there were a mutual respect and conversion between natures, persons, and wills, that blessed unity of the Divinity, as Severus teaches, would also have three wills. But if the opinion were to stand, it would disagree with itself, as not being consistent with the wills, as a Trinity of persons. Or, entirely, if the will of the supreme Trinity is one, the Divinity has but one person, and is called by a triple name.

From the same discourse

You who assert one will in Christ, O best of men, how, and of what sort do you say it is? If as a natural will of Christ, you separate Him by nature from the Father and from the Mother, inasmuch as He would not be conjoined to either of them by essence. For Christ is not by nature of either of them. But if you say this, will there not be the danger that you constitute several gods? But if it is the judgment of the will of the person alone—for by the judgment of the will the person is described and defined—you will demonstrate that He differs and disagrees with the Father ^B and the Spirit in will. But if it is of His divinity alone, the divinity will be subject to passion, desiring drink and food contrary to nature. But if it is of His humanity alone, it will not be active by nature, since it is human; and the miracles would clearly appear to be monstrous. But if you say it is common to the nature of both, how will a will be common by nature when their nature is different? But if [you say it is] as a compound of the whole, to omit the novelty and absurdity of the fable (for what composition of will can there be?), you again constitute Him as alien from the Father, expressing a single compound person with a compound will. By which reasoning, every planting which the Father has not planted is rooted out. For no new agriculture can be invented; but Severus, as it seems, did away with the natural will of the humanity in Christ, not knowing ^C that the primary and most important property of every nature, especially the rational one, is the motion of its faculty of desire, which the Fathers, having observed, clearly confessed a difference of natural wills, but not gnomic ones, in Christ. For they would never have spoken of a difference of gnomic wills in Christ, lest they proclaim Him to be of two minds, of two counsels, and, so to speak, warring against Himself by the sedition of his thoughts, and for this reason, of double personality—they who know that only according to this difference of gnomic wills did the entrance of sin into this life occur, and the enmity between us and God arise. For in no other thing is evil

^A fixed, except only in the difference between the divine will and our will according to our own judgment; against which an opposing quantity is always introduced, and its indicative number showeth to us the antipathy of the gnomic will toward God. Therefore, Nestorius and Severus have the same purpose regarding impiety, even if the manner is different. For the one, fleeing the union according to hypostasis on account of the confusion, makes the essential difference a personal division; but the other, not speaking of the essential difference on account of the division, works a physical confusion in the union according to hypostasis, whereas one ought not to confess either confusion or division in Christ, but a union of things differing in essence, and a difference of those united according to hypostasis, so that both the reason of the essences and the manner of the union may be piously proclaimed. Both of these having broken this, the one by approving the union only of gnomic qualities, and the other the difference only of natural [qualities] after the union, both fell away from the truth of the things, the one boldly condemning the mysterious division, the other [condemning] the ^B confusion.

From the same [author], from the letter to Nicander.

For we do not see the divine and uncreated nature as non-existent and void of will or operation; nor do we acknowledge the created human substance, similar to us, as non-existent and void of will or operation. And if we know that neither of these is devoid of natural existence, will, and operation, and that the one and only Christ and Son is in truth the hypostasis of these—I mean of the divine nature and the human nature—and [is] in these, how, if the same is by nature and properly God, and by nature and properly man, did he not also possess by nature and properly a divine will and operation, and a human will and operation, being wanting in neither of these according to nature, by which, ^C performing that names should truly correspond to the things, and by these again establishing the things, the same person was manifest, having and willing and operating naturally both divine and human, and from this was believed [to be] that from which, and in which, and what he was? For if the natural will and essential operation are abolished, how will he who is from these, and is these, and preserves them in one hypostasis, be God or man? And how will this or that be shown according to essence, if he does not preserve without deficiency the property of each nature, without any sin? For that which has departed from those things that are according to nature, even if it has happened outside the essence, has no existence; because it has no natural motion. ^D “For that which has no motion,” as the God-revealer and great holy Dionysius says, “neither exists, nor is it anything; nor is there any affirmation of it at all.” Therefore, we who confess the natures of Christ God—I mean the divine and the human which is like ours—for the firm proof of their existence, and for the truth of our confession concerning them,

^A it is absolutely necessary to profess an equal number of natural wills and just as many essential operations, and not to diminish or deny any of them under the pretext of the divine union in person. For we know that the union in person does not harm the natural properties at all, just as it does not harm the natures themselves, even if it brings these into one through itself in accordance with the single hypostasis. It does not at all remove the fact that they are two according to the natural definition, just as it does not, for example, allow the natural properties themselves to be contemplated separately throughout from their cohesion with one another, or [to exist] outside the communion of one with the other, as the renowned Pope of Rome, Leo, holds. It does not completely obscure their essential and natural [difference], but preserves it perfectly; for by preserving it, it is preserved, and by maintaining it, it is maintained. For the union of things is clearly active only so long as their natural distinction is preserved; for once this ceases, the union also ceases entirely, being completely obliterated by the stain of confusion. ^B

Since, therefore, this union brings no stain upon the things, nor does it injure their distinction at all, but merely, in accordance with the designation of the name, joins into unity those things that are united in it, all things which are naturally distinct are always and in every way preserved intact and perfectly within it, having suffered no change or confusion whatsoever—not in the essences themselves, nor in the wills, nor in the operations, nor in anything else that pertains to nature. How, then, do some—I know not how to express it with a decent word, but under the veil of their own probity and reverence—feign such a thing, and assert that the Word made flesh is by nature devoid of will and operation according to our own, that is, our human, nature, as though what was assumed from us in Him were truly inanimate and irrational? For that which is without operation and movement is clearly also inanimate, and that which possesses no rational will is clearly irrational and senseless. ^C And if the Word made flesh possessed our nature without these things [wills and operations], how could it be believed that He has also become man? Moreover, would He not rather be shown to have been changed in His divine nature, and to have been forced against His will to submit to the affections of the flesh? For by the destruction of the natural [properties], Arius and Apollinarius made an assault upon Him. The one by declaring Him inanimate, and the other irrational—which is to be without operation and will—blasphemed Him as being a creature and a product. For both said that the Only-Begotten was subject to passion by the nature of His divinity, and not by the nature of His flesh; although Apollinarius, still wallowing in impiety, decreed a perfect conversion into flesh, by the destruction and change of His divinity. ^D It is therefore worthwhile for those who are determined to cultivate piety to reject such a confession, and to hold fast to the teaching of the holy Fathers, and two natural wills

^A and essential operations, to confess and admit in one and the same [Subject]. For if we were to say there is one will and one operation in Him, we would plainly be dogmatizing that He is either not by nature man, but only God, or by nature only man and not God, or neither man nor God. For instance, if we should say that the will is natural, it must necessarily be either divine or human; and if it is divine, the Word will by nature will divine things, showing Himself to be God by nature only, and of one will with His own Begetter, and not man; for it is not in the nature of things that through what is divine by nature, the human should be characterized by nature, just as through what is human by essence, what is divine by essence cannot be known. This, moreover, would logically follow if we spoke of the will as human by nature. But if we say it is hypostatic, it will be a characteristic of His person alone; and by it He would never share with the Father or with us, for the extremes are distinguished and separated by [their] hypostasis. The same may also be said again concerning the operations. ^B But for this reason—God forbid—we do not reject the singular expressions of the God-bearing Fathers concerning them, that is, the operations; namely, the "Theandric [God-man] operation" of the aforementioned divine interpreter, the holy Dionysius, and the "one and akin operation shown through both" of the wise Cyril. For these were piously proclaimed by them on account of the union and the complete natural cohesion of the natural operations with one another, just as the dual ones were [proclaimed] on account of the essential and natural distinction between them. For the term "Theandric" embraces both the divine and the human operation simultaneously. For the teacher, devising a suitable word that, as I said, might capture each in the utterance, and pronouncing it in the singular, circumlocutively signified the dual operation of Him who is of dual nature. ^C But even that [expression] of the wise Cyril: "one and akin operation shown through both," is most consistent with the great intelligence of this great Father. For he himself also teaches through it a certain summing-up, cohesion, and union of the natural operations. For when it was resolved by this most illustrious man to show that the flesh is God, and that its essential operation, through union with the Word who is God by nature, had become divine, and that it had performed works greater than human reason—though it had by no means departed from that which it was by nature—just as the Word Himself, having of His own will become man for us, performed works according to man although He was God by nature, he teaches that this One does not heal and give life merely by an all-effecting command, as if He were a naked God, but that He is eager to employ His holy flesh, as ^D a kind of co-worker for this very purpose, and to give life and heal through it and through the touch and voice occurring through it; in order that He might show it to be capable of giving life, because of its [union] with it [the Word]...

and not that another flesh is essentially existing. Therefore, He also displays one operation ^B of His and of hers—I mean, of the holy flesh—a familiar [or related] one, by means of both—one indeed by union, but again familiar by its parts—since it is the same in both the all-effecting command and the touch of the holy flesh. For as God, the Word clearly displayed this by means of both, showing by it also how to give life, so that it also became life-giving throughout: just as fire, burning through iron, by the union with it renders the iron possessed of the power of burning, so that henceforth the burning is not only of the fire by nature, but also of the iron itself, on account of the union; and again, the divine operation of the Word in the performing of miracles is not only His because of His nature, but also of the holy flesh itself, on account of the hypostatic union with it. For He employed it as a partner in His divine works, as the Master says, just as the soul employs its own body for the fulfillment of its proper works. This operation, then, which is one and demonstrated as familiar by both, declaring the union of the natural operations, signifies by its own power the distinct and dual nature of these—much like the theandric operation—in that it is referred to both parts from which and in which the one and only incarnate Word was known; and it belongs to both, as if demonstrated by both—the all-effecting command and the touch of the holy flesh.

But let no one be at all offended by the word "familiar" (or if you would call it "cognate" or "of the same kind," as if it were a little unusual). For the holy Fathers have used it, as much in cases of those which are of the same essence as in those which are diverse. The great Theologian, Gregory, is a witness to this, when he discourses on the soul in these words, in the ^C Funeral Oration for his brother Caesarius: "And having received again, a little later, the familiar flesh with which it philosophized on heavenly things." In this place, the Teacher called the flesh "familiar" to the soul not on account of nature, but of union. And again, in the oration "On the Holy Lights," teaching about the only-begotten Son, he says: "To whom the Spirit also, who is familiar, bore witness." In this place, he called Him "familiar" not on account of union, but on account of nature. Indeed, the most wise Cyril himself, as regards things separated in essence or nature, and those separated in person, uses the word "familiar" and "akin" without any discrimination; and he states these things in his Commentaries on the Gospel of John regarding the healing which is through divine baptism, "To both, in a certain manner, familiar and friendly. For by the Spirit He sanctifies the spirit of man, but by water, the body." But what, and of what kind, is the familiarity of the Holy Spirit and water, either according to essence or ^D hypostasis, in relation to our spirit and body—even if it is especially so by grace to us and to our spirit and body?

From the same [author's] letter to Nicander, Bishop of Cyprus, and to those presiding over those who live the solitary life in Sicily. From nature, God and man, the same [being] is strictly, not

^A from elsewhere, but from those properties naturally inherent, by which he is characterized both divinely and humanly—namely, from the divine, as I said, will and operation, and from the human will and operation of the same; for by these, and through these, he seals what he was and what he has become, working miracles voluntarily beyond us as God, yet suffering voluntarily for us as man. He is recognized, therefore, not as some different thing from those things from which, in which, and as which he exists—as though he were some bastard and intermediate thing, that is, a third result, following the example of mules, as the storytelling of the babblers or heretics fantasizes, having fallen away from the pious proclamation of the holy Fathers—but he exists truly and strictly as those things from which and in which he truly and strictly is. For existing by nature from deity and humanity, and in deity and humanity, Christ is God by nature and man; and nothing else at all.

And how, they say, does the wise Cyril declare that he perceives a certain middle order of the expressions concerning Christ, writing thus to Acacius: "For some of the expressions are most appropriate to God; others, again, are so appropriate to man; and others hold a certain middle order." And what does this contribute to those people for their own presumption? For he does not suggest, by way of change, or by the rejection of the extremes—I mean the deity of Christ and his humanity, or his divine and human will and operation—some other middle ^B or intermediate result, which would share with neither of the parts from which he is, nor, again, that it is a certain composite operation, as they think, or possessed of such, which the teacher hands down to us in these words. Rather, he teaches that these things are strictly those from which he is; yet these are not named as divided, but together, and each at the same time in the same thing, as Christ is one and alone.

And the man himself testifies to these things while defending the Eastern bishops, and writing to Acacius as follows: "But the brethren at Antioch do not in any way tear asunder the things that are united; but they contend that only the expressions spoken of Christ must be separated, and that some are appropriate to his deity, while others, again, are appropriate to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. ^C They add, nevertheless, that some are in a way common, and look, as it were, to both natures, the deity, that is, and the humanity. What I mean is like this: among the expressions which are attributed to Christ, some are most appropriate to the deity; others, however, pertain more to the humanity; and others, finally, are as it were middle, which declare the Son of God to be God and man at once and in the same thing."

Therefore, the teacher shows to us that there is a middle class of expressions, not signifying that Christ is something other than those things from which, in which, and as which he is, as some have supposed, but that he shows the same to be God and man by nature. And he brings forward for the proof of these things the God-inspired Scriptures, saying thus: "When he says to Philip, 'Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me, Phil- ^D

Philip? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?' ^A And, 'I and the Father are one;' he affirms this saying to be most befitting to the Divinity. But when he is rebuking the crowds of the Jews, he says: 'If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God: this Abraham did not do.' We say that he is explaining in this way those things which are properly fitting to a man. Yet it is to be understood in such a way that both those things which pertain to the Divinity, and those things again which pertain to the humanity, are ascribed to the one Son alone. But these intermediate voices we affirm just as the blessed Paul writes: 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.' ^B And again: 'There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.' And again: 'Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever, Amen.' For behold, behold, naming Christ Jesus, he says that the same one is yesterday and today and forever, and that through him all things were made. And him who is from the Jews according to the flesh, he calls God over all, and blessed forever, Amen. Therefore, in these things which are said about the Lord, he does not divide the voices. For they embrace them together, and what befits God, and what befits a man. Nay rather, he ascribes them as to one, to the Son, ^C namely to the God Word incarnate. With these words the Spirit has also shown us that these intermediate voices signify absolutely nothing else in Christ than what befits God at the same time and man; whence he orders them to be ascribed to him indivisibly, as to one and the same who is by nature God and man; and as I said, there is nothing else at all."

Of the same, from his discourse that there are two wills in Christ,

For if what is divine and the human will are not distinct according to essence, it is clear that they are one and the same by nature. But if this is so, then the nature must also necessarily be one, and there is no variation or difference. For where there is no diversity of natural wills, there is no diversity of essence or nature at all. But if they are other and other by nature, they are clearly distinct. And if they are distinct, how do they not create a number? ^D For if the reason of essence is removed, then the distinction is removed, and those things which are distinct, even if they were indeed something, are entirely abolished. For if it even comes to be, how can these exist and not be numbered? Or what cause is there at all, or how is it that they are by nature both wills, and yet are not numbered by nature, when they never refrain from being numbered by right? For if in internal things—those things that are innate and constitutive of things—it is fitting that there be existence alongside the things themselves, then this also abolishes number,

or else, by those through whom it is introduced, it leads into confusion; or [it is to show] how they do not, by rejecting or confusing it, altogether abolish the natural human will of the Savior, through the refusal of [numbering] it according to number. ^A For by being deified in the union with God, in the same way as the nature itself of the flesh, which is endowed with logical and intellectual soul, it neither departs from its essential existence, just as neither does iron depart from its own when the complete and thorough commingling and union with fire occurs. But it undergoes the things of fire, since by the union it has become fire; yet it weighs down again according to nature, and it cuts, because it has not suffered a corruption of its own nature, nor has the natural energy departed from it in its entirety. And yet, while it exists with fire according to the same and one hypostasis, and while it acts indivisibly, it performs both the things according to its own nature—I speak of cutting—and again the things according to the union, which is burning. For the cutting belongs to it, just as the burning belongs to the fire, because of the extreme penetration and exchange of these into one another. We are therefore not prevented from naming or numbering its nature—I mean that of the iron, even if it is seen with fire—nor its natural energy, even if it is seen with burning and has no distance from the latter, but appears and is known univocally with it and in it. What then is the argument for not numbering that which naturally belongs to the nature, that is, the will, and for not acknowledging this in the Word of God, who is ineffably perfect and pre-perfect, who has become incarnate, even though He has joined in the communion of the things of nature—indivisibly, in accordance with the union—for the sake of our salvation, by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, just as He indeed partook of nature itself in its perfection, except for sin, because sin is not of nature, but is a gnomological slip and wandering, moved against reason and the law of nature?

^B And it seems to me that the aforementioned monk, whom I have mentioned, very appropriately noticed this, having distinguished the gnomological from the natural will. For the latter, according to the definition of it that he well set forth, is a power yearning for that which is according to nature. For everything that exists, and especially of those things which are rational, naturally yearns for that which is according to nature, and it receives this power essentially from God, in order that its own substance and that which it is may be preserved. For if it does not have the yearning for that which is according to nature, whence and how could it have it for that which in no way exists and is nothing, which possesses absolutely no existence or movement? For only that which does not exist and is without essence is inert; and not even one power or movement of it exists among created things. But the ^C deliberate impulse is established as making the turns in either direction; and it is not a thing of nature...

^A but rather strictly of the person and hypostasis. Once he recognized this, the divided man and man-worshipper Nestorius impiously dogmatized a union of "deliberate choices," in order that he might thereby confirm each [nature] by the other hypostasis, and that the mere man might be preserved for him, having effected the union by a certain deliberate choice and self-willed movement toward God the Word, as he himself says. From this he establishes a "same-will" — or, to speak more appropriately, a "poly-will" — insofar as, according to each movement of the deliberate will, it proceeds by degrees from the imperfect to the perfect (according to his opinion) by tending and progressing, ^B and not by the ineffable conception itself, which is whole and complete with all its own attributes, whereby our nature was united to the divinity of the Word in one and the very same hypostasis, together with all that belongs to it.

In order, therefore, that the aforementioned monk might accurately define the perfection of nature in the incarnate God and exclude contradiction, he defined the natural will in Him, but separated the deliberate will, giving no place to division for faction to arise therein, nor to the imagination for an intrusion, because that [deliberate will] does not exist [in the incarnate Word]. If, however, someone perhaps asserts that it is impossible for two wills to be spoken of in Him in any other way than through contrariety or opposition—if he understands this in the sense of them being essentially diverse and distinct, I too accept it; but if he implies that they are contrary and at odds with one another, the argument is false. For it is not the case that if something is distinct and diverse, it is also altogether contrary and adverse. For the adverse and the contrary are of the deliberative will, and of a choice moved otherwise than by reason; ^C but the diverse or distinct is the work of nature, which is governed by reason. And the former sets nature at war, while the latter openly unites and constitutes it. An essential difference and distinction, therefore, exists so that things may subsist in nature and be preserved intact; not so with contrariety, but rather for their dissolution and destruction. For nature does not possess what is adverse to the principles of nature; nor is there any reason in things for what is tumultuous and discordant.

Furthermore, if the two wills are altogether contrary and opposite, how comes it that this does not go on to happen entirely and absolutely among those [rational beings] who are separated by nature and person? For although there are deliberate and mental wills, we sometimes consent to them—to God, to the angels, and to one another—yet we have not thereby lost our own mental faculty of choice, nor our will. For if we had suffered the loss of these, we should certainly have lost harmony with others; for as long as we are masters of that [faculty], we also possess the other things that belong to a willing mind and its own choice. ^D Since, therefore, things are thus, and no conflict appears anywhere, even though deliberate wills are preserved intact in existence and number, and are united in a friendly relationship, how is it that in the one and the same incarnate God the Word, who became man completely for our sake, the wills that are essentially present in Him by nature should be contrary? And how do they say these are contrary, by the very number...

or by their very existence? ^A For if they state this as the cause, then they would have also abolished the nature of the flesh, in that it exists, as being contrary to the Word because of its existence. For it is far more powerful, as is evident to all, for the subject itself to be for opposition, than that which exists in the subject. But if it is only on account of the number, and they wish to render the natures devoid of this, and do not number even one of them; let them also reject it again for the same reason, even in the case of the three hypostases of the one and unoriginate Godhead, lest that also create sedition against itself. But it is absurd indeed to attribute such great power to that which is nothing at all—not being a substance, nor a quality, nor any other of the things by which the classes of beings are judged; and it is more absurd still to accuse the existence itself of the natural will, and thence to contrive its destruction. And this, when it is the innate power, being the foremost of other natural properties and movements in the nature. For by this alone we naturally desire to be, and to live, and to be moved, and to think, and to speak, and to perceive, and to partake of food, and of rest, and not to suffer pain, and not to die, and, in short, of all things that constitute our nature, ^B both to possess perfectly the habits and to be deprived of the things that damage them (to speak in a word, we naturally desire all things that tend to the preservation of nature, and to avoid those that lead to ruin).

And it seems to me that in this, the pious monk also acted appropriately in his definition, when he added this: "And the preserving power of all the properties that essentially belong to the nature." For the essential and innate will in us always preserves and maintains all things, and desires to preserve them, and to lack none of them; or rather we ourselves [, do so] through it and according to it. And I think that anyone who might take account at all of what truly is, and not of what only seems to be, would certainly agree that since the God who became incarnate is man, He possesses a natural and human will; and that He naturally wills each of those things which have been enumerated, according to it, for the confirmation of His own intellectually and rationally ensouled flesh, ^C if indeed He became man perfect, lacking nothing of ours, save only sin, but having all things that we also have, without omission, those things which are by nature constituent of our essence, just as also those of the unoriginate and divine nature, through which He truly made known that He is at once man and God, and preserves the relationship to us and to the Father, perfectly natural, after the union.

For to say that at the time of the saving passion alone, when He was truly modeling our nature in Himself, and as man was declining death, He was shown as having two wills, seems to me an assertion, not a demonstration. ^D For why at this time alone, and not before it, and for what reason? For if He had it then, He also had it from the beginning, from the time He became man, and did not adopt it later. But if He did not have it from the beginning, then neither did He have it at the time of the passion; but He only pretended the refusal, and with it the rest of the things through which we have been saved,

such as tears, prayer, sorrow, fear of death, the cross, death, burial; for if one of those things which in Him naturally exist according to our human nature were annulled, neither would the others remain. For how would that ^A one not exist, while these do? And what is the reason? And what kind of contradiction is it to pray, and of one’s own will to make a display of natural weakness—I speak of the weakness of the flesh—by means of shrinking, and not to contend at all, but to say: "If it is possible," and, "Not as I will, but as You will," and to conjoin to this shrinking the strong and eager movement against death? For He was depicting in Himself, in reality, our own state, by yielding for a little while to natural dread of death and to its anxious fear, so that He might deliver us from it, and might establish the nature of His own flesh, and show to all that the dispensation was free from any empty appearance. But again, He immediately manifests the greatest impulse against death, and [shows] the extreme [point] of what is human in Him [being brought] into kinship and union with His own natural will and with the Father’s will, by consenting to this and saying: "Let not My will, but Yours be done." By the former, He casts aside division; by the latter, He again removes confusion.

But if they say these things because He does not appear to have made mention of willing at any other time than at the time of the passion, let them say the same thing concerning the innate power of understanding, and they will make Him out to be devoid of mind. For it does not appear that He said that He has thought or understood. And by the same reasoning, [the same could be said] concerning the sense of smell and the other natural things in us, of which it is not written that He made mention. Or [one might say the same thing] even about the soul itself, as if it did not exist in reality ^B from the time He became man, but only when He made mention of it. For it is not recorded that He did this long before the passion. Therefore, they must either say that it was brought into being as if on the spur of the moment, because it is not often or from the beginning mentioned—or, not saying this, but according to the opinion of the great Athanasius, "At once flesh, and at once the flesh of God the Word, ensouled and rational," let them teach that the natural will of the Savior, by which He was man, did not exist only at the time of the passion (even if He then made mention of it), but that it was from the beginning, as in us, naturally consubstantial with the Savior as man.

But it occurs to me to marvel also ^C concerning the operation, how they teach that there is one [operation] in Christ, with reference, of course, to the individual and to his, as they say, consideration. And, to pass over saying that none of the natural things have their reference primarily to the individual, but to his nature and essence—for what could anyone operate without those faculties which are inherent in nature? Or whence could it exist for anyone to operate without nature, or to possess its faculty? And I would gladly ask them whether they raise this objection in order to do away with the natural operations, or what? For if it is to do away with them, how, and of what kind then would be the cessation of those things according to ^D

^A nature? For just as when the natures do not exist, that which is from them—I mean the composite person—is also of necessity abolished; so too, when the natural operations do not exist, neither will any other operation exist at all. Nor do I say this as if wishing to concoct some other operation out of the natural ones. For of those things which are in a subject, there is no composition; since that which does not exist truly and per se [in itself] at all, but rather presents something weak and vain, does not have composition. Therefore, if they deny that those things which are by nature truly exist, how will that which is in no way existent exist, yet be possessed of a real existence? For who is it that speaks of a personal operation, and whence and from whom have they taken this to bring it forward? But if they perchance assert this, and confess the person to whom it is referred to be composite, and capable of contraries and opposites—namely, mortal and immortal, visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, having no beginning and subject to a beginning—justly will the operation also be such. And in what other way, if not by habit and privation? And some of these it will experience as existents, while others it will experience as non-existents, standing like a shadow. But how can it come about that one who is gifted with such an operation, according to the same [principle], does not experience such things as one thing, and then as something else (since the [operation] itself does not either)? For it is altogether necessary that the agent be adapted to its own operation, and that this be connatural and akin to him. And in what way is He God if He is so not by nature, but by the habit of it? And in what way is he man if he is so by privation, and not ^C existing as this in substance? And what nature is inert, or lacking a natural operation? For just as it is never void of existence and substance, so neither is it devoid of natural power. But if it is in want of this, it would also be in want of existence. For that which is powerless, as being altogether inert, is just nothing at all. For everything that is among beings possesses a constitutive difference—the innate motion taken together with the genus—which makes the definition of the subject, through which ^D it is known what it is and that it is truly; both holding the invariant [relation] toward things of the same kind, and again the different [relation] toward things of a different kind. And if this is so, how is it possible for the Word, who became man, to be called a perfect man, or man at all, while being devoid of natural power according to the flesh? For man is not without a natural operation, just as no other nature is without its own and essential [one]. For the lack of this either causes the nature not to be a nature, or else makes all things identical to each other, and instead of all, one, through the failing of the constitutive [property] which blends and confuses them entirely. For if they do not say that the Word who became flesh for us is without operation, it is clear that they say He has an innate and human operation. For how else could it be? For it is not possible to operate without a natural operation, just as it is not possible to exist without substance and nature. But it is altogether necessary that He who operates, if He be of a double nature, should not have only one natural operation; since

^A furthermore, it may be noted that the composite person according to Christ is not properly called an individual. For it does not have a relation, by reason of the fact that it is divided from the most general genus through subaltern genera into the most specific species, and defines its own progression therein. And this is the reason why, on the authority of the most wise Cyril, the name "Christ" has not at all the force of a definition. For it is not a species which is predicated of many things distinct in number, nor does it signify the essence of anyone. Neither indeed is it an individual which is reduced to species or genus, or which is circumscribed by them according to its essence; but it is a composite person, drawing the natural division of the extremes to the highest identity and unity in itself, by the union of its parts.

Of the same, on the words: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me."

^B If you understand that word, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," as having the force of human trepidation, and do not think that it is of the Savior—because His will is not opposed to God, since it is entirely deified—but of a mere man, such as we are, who in many things resists and opposes God, as the divine Gregory says, then what force does that remaining part of the prayer, "Not what I will, but your will be done," seem to have for you: that of fear or of virtue, of highest conjunction or of dissension? Certainly no one who is sane will attribute those words to fear and repugnance, but rather to perfect conjunction and agreement.

^C But if it is of perfect conjunction and agreement, from whom does it receive this? From a man such as we are, or from the man who is understood according to the Savior? But if it is from a simple man such as we are, then the speech of the preceptor which we mentioned is false, since he does not follow the divine will at all, but for the most part opposes it. For if he follows, he does not oppose; and if he opposes, he does not follow. For one is removed and taken away by the other as by its contrary. But if you attribute those words to a man, not such as we are, mere and simple, but as to the Savior—"Not what I will, but your will be done"—you confess the highest agreement of the human will with His own divine ^D and paternal will; and you establish two natural wills and two natural actions of Him who has a double nature, although neither of them opposes the other, even though it may have had a natural difference in all things from which, and in which, and what He Himself was according to nature. But if, overcome by these arguments, you take refuge in saying that those words, "Not what I will, but your will be done," belong neither to a mere man such as we are nor to the man understood according to the Savior, but are referred by way of negation to the divinity of the Only-Begotten which is without beginning, because He cannot properly will anything apart from the Father; then consequently, that which was willed—that is, the deprecation of the cup—must also necessarily be referred to that divinity which is without beginning. For if the negation of the power to will anything specifically is its ...

^A force, you say, so that it may take it away, and not that it may take away that which He wills: for it is not possible for the negation to be posited in both ways, so that the Only-Begotten might will something specifically apart from the Father, and take away that which He wills. But if it is not possible to posit the negation in both ways, it is clear that if you bring it to the willing of something specifically, so that you might posit a common will, you will not be taking away that which was willed—namely, the deprecation of the cup—but will be referring it to the divinity which is without beginning, to which you have also referred, by negation, the very act of willing. But if this is something to be shunned even in thought, then clearly the negation here—namely, the "Not what I will"—which entirely does away with opposition, sets forth the agreement of the human will of the Savior with His divine and paternal will, just as the Word made his entire nature his own, and deified the whole by his essence. Whence, as He who for our sake became what we are, He said in a manner befitting a human being to God and the Father: "Not my will, but yours be done," as one who had a will ^B as a human being.

From the same, from the disputation held with Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Since Christ was God by nature and human, did the same Christ will as God and human, or as Christ only? But if Christ willed primarily as God and human, clearly He willed in a dual manner, and not in a singular one, being one and the same. For since Christ is nothing apart from His natures, from which, and in which, He has His existence, it is clear that, being one and the same, He willed and operated in a manner befitting His natures—that is, as was proper to each—since neither of them is without a will or without an operation. But if Christ willed and operated in a manner befitting His nature—that is, as each was constituted—and his natures were two, then of necessity his natural wills were also two, and the essential operations corresponding to them were likewise numerical. For just as the number of the natures of one and the same Christ, if it is piously understood and spoken, does not divide Christ, but shows the difference of the natures to be preserved even in the union; ^C so too the number of the wills and operations essentially belonging to His natures—for in both, as has been said, He was the same one possessing the faculty of willing and of operating our salvation according to both His natures—does not introduce a division. Far be it! But it shows that they are preserved even in the union, and that this alone is what is meant.

From the same disputation, that the flesh was not moved by the nod of the united Word, as Pyrrhus said.

You divide Christ when you speak in this way. For Moses was moved by His nod, and David, and as many as became capable of the divine operation by the laying aside of human ^D and carnal properties. But we, following the divine Fathers in this as in all things, say that the same

^A God, having immutably become man, willed not only as God in a manner befitting His divinity, but the same also willed as man in a manner befitting His humanity. For if things that have been made from non-existence have a power of retaining and protecting that which is—that which is not being, and is nothing—and if it is proper to their nature to pursue those things which serve to protect and provide safety, and to flee those things that tend to destruction, then the Word, who is above all essence, having taken on an essence in a human way, also possessed the power to retain and protect that which is His own humanity; the impulse and movement of which He showed through operation: the impulse, indeed, in so far as He made use of natural and blameless things to such an extent that He was not even thought by the unbelievers to be God; and the movement, at the time of the passion, when He voluntarily withdrew due to the fear of death. What incongruous thing, then, has the Church of God done by confessing, along with His human and created nature, the reasons inserted into it by Him—which are also inseparable from it—without any defect, without which it is impossible for even a nature to exist? ^B

From the same work.

If one must confess only those things that have been spoken synodically, one must also not say that "the one nature of the Word of God is incarnate," which embraces the whole piety of the mystery, since it was not promulgated by any synodal decree. Furthermore, even this way you will be compelled to confess wills along with natures and their properties. For if you say that those things which naturally pertain to the natures of Christ are their properties, and that "to will" is naturally implanted in each of His natures, then, along with other natural properties, you will be compelled to confess the wills along with the natures. ^C Moreover, if the synods anathematized both Apollinaris and Arius on account of the word "one" (since both of them abused this word to establish their own heresy: Apollinaris, indeed, wishing to show that the flesh was of the same substance as the Word; Arius, however, struggling to introduce the Son as of a different substance than the Father), how can we be pious if we do not confess the words that are contrary to the heretics? But the fifth synod—to pass over everything else—decreed verbatim that it receives "all the writings of the holy Athanasius, and Basil, and the Gregories, and certain others explicitly selected as eminent teachers, in which also the two wills are contained."

From the same work.

In the holy Gospels it is said ^D of the Lord that "on the next day Jesus willed to go into Galilee." It is manifest that He willed to enter in that respect in which He was not there. Now, He was not there according to His humanity, for by His divinity He is nowhere absent. Therefore, He willed to enter and depart as man, not as God, and He was volitional as man.

And in another place again: "I will that where I am, they also may be." If, ^A in as much as He is God, Christ is above "where" He is—for God is not in a place, and it is impossible for created nature to exist above "where"—then, in as much as He is man, He wills that where He is, they may also be; and the same Person was possessed of will in as much as He is man.

And in another place again: "And having come to a place, He said: I thirst. And they gave Him wine mixed with gall; and having tasted it, He would not drink." According to which part of Him is it said that He thirsted? If indeed according to the divinity, His divinity will be passible, ^B seeking drink contrary to nature. But if according to the humanity, then in that respect in which He thirsted, in that same respect He did not wish to drink what was incongruous to nature; and the same Person was possessed of will in as much as He is man.

And in another place he says: "And Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him." If walking is of the nature of the flesh, and not of the divinity united to it according to hypostasis, then, in as much as He was man, the same Person walking in Galilee did not wish to walk in Judea; and the same Person was possessed of will in as much as He is man.

And elsewhere again: "And having departed from thence, they passed through Galilee; and He would not that any man should know it." It is agreed by all that the journey is by the nature of the humanity, as has been said, and not of His divinity; ^C but if the journey belonged to Him in as much as He was man, but not in as much as He was God by nature, then also, in as much as He was man, traveling with the disciples, He did not wish that any man should know it; and the same Person was possessed of will in as much as He is man.

And elsewhere again: "And having arisen from thence, He went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And having entered into a house, He would have no man know it; and He could not be hid." If, in as much as Christ was God, He was self-subsistent Power; but in as much as He was man, He was weakness. For if also He was crucified, says the divine Apostle, "out of weakness, yet He lives by the power of God"; then, in as much as He was man, and not in as much as He was God, having entered into the house, He did not wish that any man should know it, and yet He could not be hid; ^D and the same Person was possessed of will, in as much as He is man.

And in another place he says: "Near the fourth watch of the night He comes to them, walking upon the sea, and He would have passed by them." If any one should interpret this to have been said of Him in as much as He was God, he will be compelled to say that the divinity is bounded by bodily limits—I mean by above and below, by before and behind, by right and left. But if he wishes this to have been said of Him in as much as He was man, then the same Person was possessed of will in as much as He is man.

And in another place he says: "And His disciples came to Him, saying to Him: Where wilt Thou that we go and prepare for Thee the Pasch to eat?" Since the eating of the Pasch is under the Law; and the Lord has become man.

^A in that He is man, and not in that He is God, He is therefore under the Law. As man, then, He willingly ate the Pasch, and He Himself was volitional even as He was man. From the same.

The great Moses, in the creation of man, introduces God saying: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness." If, therefore, man is an image of the divine nature, and the divine nature is possessed of free-will, then the image is so as well; provided it keeps the likeness to the archetype, it is possessed of free-will by nature. And if this is so, and the archetype is by nature [free], and the image is by nature [free], then He Himself was by nature volitional according to both His natures. For it was shown previously from the Fathers that the will is a free power by nature.

But it must be known that "free power," or "free will," is said ^B of things that are not spoken of in one way, just as nature is not; for it is understood differently in God, differently in angels, and differently in men. In God, it is supersubstantial; in angels, as the impulse concurs with the habit, with no interval of time inserted at all; in men, as the impulse is conceived of as occurring in time alongside the habit. For if Adam listened willingly, and looked willingly, and ate with the will as his guide, then the will was the first thing in us to be subject to the crime. If, therefore, the will is the first to incur the stain in us, and if, as those heretics think, the Word made man did not assume it, then I have not shaken off my sin. But if I have not shaken off the sin and its stain, that which is not assumed is not cured. ^C

Furthermore, if the power of free-willed nature is the work and creation of God; yet, as they opine, the Word incarnate did not assume this with His nature through an ineffable union, either because He rejected His own creation as not good, or because He grudged us its salvation; He thus deprives us of perfect salvation [complete cure], and at the same time shows Himself not exempt from faults, in that He either does not will to heal perfectly or is unable to do so.

These things, then, so far, to show that God the Word incarnate is endowed with the faculty of the will by nature even as He is man. But that He is also endowed with it even as He is God, we shall learn from this. For the Lord and God Himself, the only Truth, says concerning Himself in the Gospels thus: "Jerusalem, ^D Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not? Now thy house shall be left to you desolate." For it is clear that He did not say this in that He was man, since He had only recently become man; but in that He was God, showing the diverse modes of His wise providence toward the human race; by which

having willed to gather human nature to Himself from its error amidst external things, it would not. And again He says: "As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will" (Joan. v, 21). ^A Since that word "as" is an adverb of comparison, and comparisons relate to things of the same substance; therefore this cannot be accepted regarding the human will in Christ. Consequently, the Savior taught us that, just as the Father, being God, quickeneth the dead by His will, so also He Himself, being consubstantial with the Father and of the same will, quickeneth whom He will. These are the decrees of the evangelists, and apostles, and prophets. What demonstration, then, could be greater than this, showing both the reason why He is God, and that, being the same, He is shown to be endowed with the faculty of will as man? ^B Item, from the epistle to Nicander the bishop. How do some say there is simply one operation in Christ the God? For it must be either that of His parts, or of Him entirely as a whole. But if it is of the parts, it will be divided, being cut into both parts; and if this happens, it will be altogether dissolved, and will dissolve with it the things joined according to it. But if it is of the whole, it will be capable of contraries, being mortal and immortal, created and uncreated, circumscribed and uncircumscribed. And if this were so, Christ would have possessed His own operation according to habit and privation, which was and was not; on account of which, as operating appropriately according to it and out of its nature, He would exist as capable of contraries by the same thing, and not by one thing and another; ^C than which what could be said to be more impious? The same thing must also be said concerning the will. For in what way was the Word taking the flesh as a partner in His own work, as the most wise Cyril feels and speaks, if it lacked its natural operation? For that which lacks operation and natural motion is altogether dead and inanimate. And by what logic was He admitting the dead into partnership in work? For that which is without operation, being devoid of every motion, lies listless and inert. But in what way was He showing it to be able to quicken, as the same Cyril taught again, through its natural motions—for instance, touch, voice, walking—if these were not its own, or essentially in it? For if they were essentially its own, it clearly had natural operation. For ^D the motions of the hands and feet, as well as the utterance of the voice, pertain to its essential operation. But if these were not according to its nature, the Savior did not demonstrate that it was capable of quickening. By the same, against those who say that one must say Christ has one operation by way of domination. First, you yourselves confess two operations, one of which is superior, namely the divine, and one that is...

^A inferior, that is, the human. And this belongs to those things that are considered in relation to something else. But things of this kind necessarily involve themselves and their opposites. Furthermore, since you say a superior action, as if human life were removed by being dominated, you introduce a diminishment into them. For that which dominates is always inferior to the things it affects. And it is also dominated by that which is dominated. For even if it excels, yet it is surely dominated, just like gold, which, while it dominates the silver and copper mixed with it, is itself also dominated, even if less so. It is clear that this is according to the quantity that is mixed in.

Of the same, against those who say that, just as there is one operation of an instrument and of him who uses the instrument, so also there is one operation of the Divinity and of the humanity. ^B If you say that the instrument is natural, the Word will be, according to you, contemporary with the flesh, or the flesh co-eternal with the Word; for everything that uses a natural instrument—for instance, the soul with the body—has it as contemporary. It is therefore in your power to say either that the divine nature is created, or that the body is uncreated. But if you claim that the instrument is artificial, you introduce it as inanimate, and existing separately, and detached, and not always moving, but only when it seems good to the craftsman to take it into his hands and work with it. Consequently, you will be shown to be of the same mind as Nestorius, the madman, who divided and separated the two natures of Christ God into one hypostasis or person, or again, as disciples of the impious Apollinarius, who asserted that the body of Christ was devoid of soul and mind.

Item against the Monothelites, from Damascene. Chapter 77.

Two wills and operations in Christ:—Preaching the same Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God ^C and perfect man, we profess that he has all things that the Father has, except for the property of being unbegotten; and that he has all things that the first Adam had, except for sin alone, which is body and soul endowed with reason and intelligence: moreover, that he also has, as is fitting for two natures, dual natural properties of the two natures; that is, two natural operations, divine and human; two natural liberties of the will, divine and human; and finally, a dual wisdom and knowledge, divine and human. For being of the same substance as God and the Father, he wills and acts freely as God; in turn, being consubstantial also with us, the same one wills and acts freely as man. For his are the miracles, and his also are the sufferings.

Of the same. Chapter 78.

As many wills and acts, so many substances—Since therefore there are two natures of Christ, we accordingly speak of his two natural wills and two natural operations. But because the hypostasis of his two natures ^D is one, we say that one and the same person wills and acts naturally according to both natures, from which, and in which, and which Christ our God is; but he wills and acts, not dividedly, but unitedly

For he wills and acts in each form with the communion of the other. For those of whom the substance is the same, of them the will and the energy are also the same; and of those of whom the substance is different, of them the will and the energy are also different; and conversely, of those of whom the will and the energy are the same, of them the substance is also the same; and of those of whom the will and the energy are different, of them the substance is also different.

^A Therefore, in the case of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the identity of the energy and of the will, we acknowledge the identity of the nature. But in the case of the divine dispensation, from the difference of the energies and of the wills, we acknowledge also the difference of the natures; and knowing the difference of the natures, we confess also the difference of the wills and energies. For just as the number of the natures of the one and same Christ, if piously understood and spoken, does not divide the one Christ, but shows the difference of the natures to be preserved and kept even in the union, so too the number of the wills and energies that belong substantially to his natures (for according to both natures he was so constituted that he willed and worked) introduces no division—heaven forbid—but only declares their preservation and integrity even in the union. For we say that the wills and energies are natural, and not hypostatic. I mean the very willing and working power, according to which he wills and works the things that are willing and working. For if we grant that they are hypostatic, we shall be forced to say that the three hypostases of the holy Trinity are differently willing and differently working. For that which is hypostatic and gnomic characterizes a single hypostasis. ^B It must be known that "to will" and "how to will" are not the same thing. For the "to will" is of nature, just as "to see" is; for it belongs to all men. But the "how to will" is not of nature, but of our own judgment—just as "how" we see, whether well or badly. For not all men will in the same way, nor do they see in the same way. We shall grant this also in the case of energies. For "how to will," "how to see," or "how to act" is the mode of the usage of willing, seeing, and acting, belonging only to the one who uses it, and separating him from others according to the commonly spoken difference.

From the same discourse

If man has been created according to the image of the blessed and superessential divinity, and if the divine nature is free by nature and possessing the power of will, then man also, as its image, will be endowed by nature with the same things. For the Fathers have defined the free choice as the will. ^C Furthermore, if to will is present in all men, and does not exist in some while not in others; but if that which is commonly observed in all characterizes the nature, ^D

it reveals a faculty of willing in man. ^A And again: if nature does not admit of more or less, and willing is present in all equally, and not more in some and less in others, then man is by nature capable of willing. So if man is by nature capable of willing, then the Lord, who became not only as God but also as man, is by nature capable of willing.

From the same chapter. For the God and Father of all wishes ^B either as Father or as God. But if it is as Father, His will will be different from that of the Son; for the Father is not the Son. But if it is as God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then we must confess the will to be of the nature, or natural.

Furthermore, if according to the Fathers, those whose will is one, of them the essence is also one, then if the will of the divinity of Christ and of His humanity is one, their substance too will be one and the same.

And again: if according to the Fathers, a difference of nature is not manifested in a single will, it is necessary ^C either that when we speak of a single will we do not speak of a natural difference, or that when we speak of a natural difference we do not posit a single will.

And again: if, as the divine Gospel says, the Lord having gone into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and having entered a house, wished that no one would know, and yet could not remain hidden; if His divine will is omnipotent, and having wished to remain hidden He could not, then it follows that as man He wished this and could not, and He was capable of willing also as man.

And again: Having come, it says, to the place, He said, I thirst. And they gave Him wine mixed with ^D gall; and when He had tasted it, He would not drink. If then as God He thirsted, and having tasted it He would not drink, then He is subject to passions even as God; for thirst and tasting are passions. But if it was not as God, then certainly as man He thirsted, and He was capable of willing also as man.

But to speak of opinion and choice in the Lord is impossible, if indeed we wish to speak accurately. For an opinion is a disposition toward what has been determined, following the investigation and deliberation, or counsel and judgment, regarding an unknown matter. After which comes choice, selecting and preferring one thing over another. But the Lord, not being a mere man, but also God, and having all things in view, had no need of consideration, or investigation, or deliberation, or even judgment; for which reason He was naturally constituted in such a way that by a certain necessity He clung to what is good, and conversely turned away from what is evil. For so also the prophet Isaiah says: Before the child knows to prefer evil, he will choose the good; because before the child knows good or evil, he disobeys…

^A not like us, after investigation and deliberation, but being God, and having become incarnate in a divine manner—that is, united to the flesh according to hypostasis—by that very fact, as He knows all things, He possessed the good by nature.

*Of the same, from chapter 79.*

Just as in a red-hot sword the natures of the fire and the iron are preserved, and the two energies, and their respective effects—for the iron has the power of cutting, and the fire ^B the power of burning—and the cutting is the effect of the iron’s energy, and the burning is the effect of the fire’s, and the difference of these is preserved in the burnt-cut and in the cut-burn: so also in Christ, the divine and omnipotent energy belongs to His divinity, and that which is ours to His humanity. The effect of the human energy was the holding of the girl’s hand and the drawing of her, that of the divine was the restoring to life. For this is one thing, and that is another, even though they exist inseparable from one another in the theandric energy. If we were to say there is one energy in the Lord, we would call it either divine, or human, or neither. But if divine, we call Him mere God, stripped of the humanity ^C like ours; if human, we blaspheme by calling Him a mere man; if neither divine nor human, then neither God nor man, and consubstantial with neither the Father nor us. For through the union, the oneness according to hypostasis was produced, but the difference of the natures was not destroyed; for with the difference of the natures being preserved, their energies will clearly also be preserved; for no nature is without energy.

*Of the same, from chapter 81.*

The Lord’s flesh was enriched with the divine energy because of its purest union with the Word, that is, according to hypostasis, in no way falling away from the properties that are its own by nature. It did not perform divine acts by its own energy, but because of the Word united to it, the Word ^D manifesting His own energy through it. For if the red-hot iron, not by natural reason possessing the burning energy, but having acquired it from the union with fire; the same therefore was both mortal of itself, and life-giving because of the union with the Word according to hypostasis. Similarly, we speak of the deification of the will, not as saying the natural movement was changed, but as it being united to His divine and omnipotent will, and it having become the will of God made man; whence, while willing to be hidden, He could not, because it pleased God the Word to show in Himself truly the weakness of the human will to exist. But while willing, He performed the cleansing of the leper because of the union with the divine will. It must be known that the deification of the nature and the will is most emphatic and most demonstrative of both the two natures and the two wills. For just as the ignition

does not change the nature of the fire, but reveals both what is ignited and what ignited it, and indicates not one, but two things, so also the deification does not create one composite nature, but reveals the two, and the union according to hypostasis. ^A Thus says the Theologian Gregory: of which the one deified, and the other was deified. For in saying both the one and the other, he showed two. *From the same, Chapter 82.*

The human will of Christ is subject to the divine.

Reason is in vain in man, if freedom be lacking to him.

by which it is moved; yet it is of such a kind that, in those things which preserve the rectitude consonant with nature, it is governed and ordered by reason. For this is the excellence of reason: the will of free power, which we call a natural movement in a rational substance. And for this reason, both when it cultivates virtue it obtains praise and is called blessed, and when it gives itself over to vice, it is punished. ^A

The Distinction of the Divine and Human Will in Christ.

Chapter 83 of the Same.

The Alternate Communication of the Actions of Christ.

is ^A two natures. Therefore, to say: “Christ acts according to both of his natures,” is the same as when we say: “Each nature acts in Christ with the communion of the other.” For the divine nature communicates with the flesh that is acting, because it is permitted by the good pleasure of the divine will to suffer and do what is proper to it, and because the action of the flesh is altogether saving, which is not of human action, but rather of divine. But the flesh, in turn, communicated with the deity of the Word as it acted, both because through the body, as through a kind of instrument, the divine actions were accomplished, and because he who was acting at once divinely and humanly was one and the same.

The human mind, as it communicates with the Word.—It is important to know that his holy mind also performs its own natural actions. For it thinks and knows itself to be the mind of God, and that it is adored by all created things, and it remembers those things which it did and suffered on earth. However, as it communicates with the acting deity of the Word, by which all things are ruled and governed, it understands, knows, and administers all things, not as a simple and naked mind of man, but as one which is united to God according to hypostasis, and which exists as the mind of God. ^B

The theandric action ^C of Christ.—The theandric action therefore declares nothing else but this: that for God made man, that is, incarnate, every human action of his was divine, or deified, and not devoid of his divine operation; and conversely, his divine action was not devoid of his human action; but each was considered together with the other. Furthermore, this way of speaking is called a periphrasis, when someone embraces two things in one expression. Just as we speak of the one burning of an ignited sword, and the scorched cutting, and yet we maintain that the cutting is distinct from the burning, and that they belong to another and another nature—the burning to the fire, of course, and the cutting to the iron—in the same way, by saying that Christ’s action is one and theandric, we understand the two actions of his two natures: the divine action of his deity, and the human action of his humanity. ^D

Item: against the Monothelites. From other diverse Fathers.

Since the natures of Christ are two, we also speak of his two natural wills and his two natural actions; for each of his natures both wills and acts. For whatever is gifted with reason has a free faculty of willing and acting. But since there is one person of his natures, we also say that it is he himself who, from both natures, both wills and acts naturally. And just as, according to the same reasoning of faith, we speak of one and the same law of will and action in the holy Trinity, so also in the divine assumption of humanity, the difference

^A of will and action we understand from the difference of the natures. For of those for whom the nature is the same, of these the will and the action are also the same. But if the nature is different, for these the will and the action are different. We say, however, that these wills and actions are natural, and not hypostatic, nor personal, nor gnomic. I speak of one volitional and active power in the case of the holy Trinity, so that we may not be forced to say that the three persons will and act differently; and a dual [power] in the case of the divine incarnation, so that we may not appear to call the assumption heterohypostatic, and confess two hypostases in the one Christ. For the hypostatic, or personal, or gnomic will belongs to the individual self-subsistent [subject]. But the Word and God assumed a perfect human nature, yet He Himself became the hypostasis ^B for the assumption. And just as the assumption was deified, and did not suffer change of its own nature, so also His will andHis action were deified, and did not depart from their own boundaries.

Another thing is will, and another is deliberation, and another is the object of will, and another is the volitional [faculty], and another is he who wills. For will is the power of willing simply, which is of nature and universal. The object of will is the thing that falls under the will. The volitional [faculty] is that which possesses the volitional power, for instance, a man simply. He who wills is such or such a man, who uses such or such a will. Will, or the volition, sometimes signifies the volitional power, and is called natural and universal will; sometimes it signifies the object of will, and is called gnomic and particular will.

On the case of men, there is one natural will, ^C because their nature is also one; but the gnomic—that is, the hypostatic—wills are many and different, because their hypostases and opinions are also many and different. But in the case of Christ, since the natures of His divinity and humanity are different, their natural wills are also different. But because their hypostasis is one, and he who wills is one, their will and opinion is also one, since that which is more excellent prevails and dominates, and the human will follows the divine, and also wills those things which please the divine will.

In the case of God, we speak of will and counsel—that is, volition—but we do not speak of opinion or choice. For opinion is the disposition following the investigation and judgment concerning an unknown thing leading to that which is judged, after which ^D choice, selecting and preferring one thing before another, follows. But God is in need of neither deliberation, nor investigation, nor choice, knowing all things naturally. Therefore, we do not say that there is counsel—that is, deliberation—in God, even if Holy Scripture often describes Him as deliberating in a human manner: "Let us make," it says,

and if anything else is said with that intention, by which the three persons of the one Divinity may be more significantly declared. But in the assumed humanity, nature indeed allows us to speak of consultation and judgment and choice, yet these things are not properly spoken of it. For since it is united with God in person, it has itself attained to the knowledge of all things. But we do speak of his natural will, namely, his volition. And if perhaps Christ is sometimes found to introduce a particular, that is, a voluntary will according to his humanity, as in the passage: "I will, be thou clean," and other such things, yet we do not call this a ^B personal or voluntary will, except by way of dispensation for the reason previously given.

In animals which lack reason, we speak of appetite, but we do not speak of will or counsel. For these are driven immediately by the appetite itself toward action without reason. But will and counsel belong only to those endowed with reason, who rather command the appetite and rule over it.

If man is by nature endowed with reason, and that which is by nature endowed with reason is by nature possessed of free will, and that free will, according to the Fathers, is nothing else but the will: then man is by nature a willing being.

If God the Word assumed me along with those things that are mine, as the Theologian says, then he also ^C assumed my natural will and my natural energy.

If every man by nature has the power of willing and acting, then God the Word also, having become man by nature, became by nature endowed with the power of willing and acting.

If the Trinity, which is of the same essence, has one will, then those things which have one will are of the same essence but of different persons. And furthermore, if, according to these fools, the two natures of Christ have one will, then they are of the same essence but of different persons, and thus they will fall into confusion and will not escape the division which the one nature possesses in the persons subject to it. ^D

TITLE XXII.

An archetype is a principle and exemplar that exists by itself, and is the cause of the form derived from it and led forth for the sake of resemblance. An image is a likeness of an exemplar, which entirely in itself...

^A contains the form expressed through the effigy, and differs from the essence only by the difference of the material; or it is the imitation and adumbration of the archetype, or the work of art finished according to the imitation of the archetype, differing in essence.

An image is so called from "being like." There is a natural image, and another that is imitative. The natural one does not have a formal difference in relation to its cause, but a hypostatic one, as the Son in relation to the Father; for their nature is one, but their hypostases are two. The imitative image, on the contrary, does not have a hypostatic difference in relation to its archetype, but a substantial one, as the image of Christ in relation to Christ. For their hypostasis is one, but their natures are two: for the nature of the material representing the image of Christ is one thing, and the nature of Christ insofar as He is man and insofar as He is described—and is constituted as the archetype of the image—is another. In the case of the imitative image, the likeness consists in the idea, that is, the form; but in the natural ^B image, the identity consists in the essence, that is, the divinity. And in the natural [image], because the nature of the Son and of the Father is one, for this reason the adoration of these is also one, and not two due to the difference of the hypostases. But in the case of the imitative [image], because the hypostasis of the image of Christ and of Christ himself is one, the adoration of these is also one, and not two due to the difference of the natures. For the imitative image is not self-hypostatic, but bears the hypostasis of the archetype, and according to this it is His image. By "hypostasis" we here mean not that which simply subsists, but a certain essence with properties, by which it is distinguished from those of the same kind. Thus, that which is self-hypostatic is not an image, but an archetype. ^C

The honor of the image passes to the original, and there is one adoration of both on account of the one character in both.

Of everything that is depicted by means of imitation, it is not the nature, but the hypostasis that is depicted, and for this reason the image of Him is the same as the archetype, not in nature, but in hypostasis—that is, in the imitation of the hypostasis.

In the image, the hypostasis of the archetype which is depicted is adored, and not the material of the image; the character impressed upon it, and not the essence of the image.

When someone looks to the nature of the image, one would not call what is seen Christ, nor even the image of Christ; for it is perhaps wood, or gold, or silver, or some other material. But when one looks to the likeness of the archetype formed through the impression, one calls it both Christ and the image of Christ—Christ, indeed, equivocally, but [the image] of Christ according to that which is relative. ^D

The image has a relation to the archetype, and is an effect dependent on a cause. It is necessary, therefore, that for this reason it also be of the number of those things that are "relative," and be so called. For the relationship belongs to relative things, and things that are relative are those which are said to be what they are of others, and they reverse the relationship toward one another. For the archetype is the archetype of the image, and the image is the image of the archetype. And no one could

call the image of something the image of another thing. For they are brought in together, and one is contemplated along with the other.

^B By as many names as the archetype is called, by so many is its image also called. But the former is called so as archetype, and by itself, and properly; the latter as its image, and because of the former, and improperly.

When the image is adored, Christ is adored, whose likeness it bears, but not the matter in which the likeness is impressed. And just as in a mirror the face of the one looking at it is described in a certain way, and remains separate from the matter; and if someone should wish to kiss their own image appearing in the mirror, it adheres to the matter, but they kiss the image, and when the person moves away, the image also flies away, because the person is separated from the mirror's matter: in the same way, he who kisses the image of the Savior, or of the Theotokos, or of any of the saints, even if it adheres to the matter, kisses the image and not the matter; and when the imprint for which the adoration was offered is wiped away, the matter remains no longer to be adored, since it has nothing in common with the likeness.

Let there be a ring on which a royal image is carved, then let it be stamped in wax, and in pitch, and in clay. In these there will indeed be the sign, and it differs in no way, even if the materials are diverse. For the sign has nothing in common with these, but is separated from them, and remains in the ring in the mind and in thought. So also the likeness of Christ, even if it is imprinted in diverse materials, has nothing in common with them, but remains in the person of Christ.

We set up sacred images so that, by contemplating them, we may seem to gaze upon their archetypes, and they become for us reminders, and a consolation of our longing for those prototypes. The more constantly the images are seen, the more those who see them are raised up toward the memory and deep desire of the archetypes.

Worship in spirit and truth is rendered by the orthodox to the blessed Trinity; but to the holy images, not worship at all, but adoration, and kissing, and honor. For even if the honor of the image passes to the prototype, yet worship is not owed to the venerable images, but to the blessed Trinity alone, ^C lest we seem to offer the cult of worship to created things and things consisting of matter.

In Christ himself the adoration of worship is natural; for he is one of the holy Trinity according to his divine nature. But in the image of Christ it is relative and equivocal: for in it I adore Christ, who, because he put on flesh, is depicted by an image, as far as his bodily appearance is concerned, which adoration is one of relation and of person.

Just as faith, so too is worship assigned to the holy Trinity. Wherefore he who offers the cult of worship to the image of Christ is found to be worshiping a quaternity, and introducing the image into the holy Trinity. For to the Trinity, as has been said, worship is owed. If the shadow of a body cannot be separated, since it is always

^A present with the body, even if it is not seen, then not even the image of Christ can be separated from Him; but just as the shadow is perceived by the approach of the sun, so also is the image of Christ by the impression of the material.

Since two things—shadow and image—are considered in relation to a body, the shadow shows a certain dim indication of the man, while the image shows it more clearly. If, therefore, that which is internal is better than that which is external, and that which is by essence is better than that which is by privation, and that which is clear is better than that which is dim: then indeed, the shadows of the saints are both holy and of benefit; their images, therefore, will be far more holy and more venerable. Christ is seen in His own image, and the image consists in Him.

We do not worship images as gods, nor do we have the hope of salvation placed and deposited in images, nor do we assign to them divine honor after the manner of the nations; but in venerating them, we demonstrate the affection and love of our soul ^B which we have toward the prototypes. This can be gathered from the fact that, when the image on wood is blotted out, we cast the wood itself into the fire as useless.

When we join two pieces of wood to form the sign of the cross, if any of the unbelievers should reproach us for worshipping wood, we are able to separate the two pieces of wood, dissolve the sign of the cross, and treat them as useless wood, and thus silence the mouth of the unbelievers themselves, since we venerate the sign of the cross and not the wood.

With fear and truth are the holy images to be approached and worshipped, and it is to be believed that divine grace, the bestower of holiness, is constantly in them.

As, while the nature of the holy Trinity remains inseparable, since the Son became flesh, no one would say that the Father and the Spirit also put on flesh; so, while the divinity remains united to the humanity of the Son ^C by subsistence and remains indivisible, although His humanity is circumscribed and depicted in an image, no one would for that reason say that His divinity is also circumscribed and depicted. For there, the natural conjunction did not confuse the persons; and here, the union by subsistence does not exclude the natures from their proper bounds. For it is the bound of divinity not to fall under sight and not to be circumscribed; but it is the bound of humanity both to be seen and to be circumscribed.

If, because Christ was crucified in the flesh, it is impious to say that the divinity also suffered together with Him, then it is likewise impious to say that because He is circumscribed in the flesh, the divinity is also circumscribed with Him. The former is held by those heretics who assert that God is capable of suffering, and are therefore called Theopaschites; the latter is held by the opponents of images, who are called Iconoclasts.

With great and ineffable affection toward Christ, ^D we venerate and worship also the places where He walked or sat, not simply worshipping the places, but through them the One who moved about in them, and through the places referring the honor to Him.

Chapter 25 of Damascus

^A But since some lay it to our blame that we adore and venerate the icons of our Saviour, and of our Lady, and of the rest of the saints and servants of Christ, let them hear that from the beginning God made man according to His own image. For why do we venerate one another, if not because we have been made according to the image of God? For as that great and most excellent man in explaining divine matters, Basil, says, the honor of the image passes to the prototype. And the Mosaic people adored the tabernacle in a circle, which bore the image and form of heavenly things, or rather of the whole of creation. God says indeed to Moses: "See that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain." And were not the Seraphim overshadowing the mercy seat the works of human hands? What, then? Was that most celebrated temple in Jerusalem not a work of men and constructed by human craft? The Divine Scripture detests those who adore graven images, and who sacrifice to demons. For Greeks and Jews indeed sacrificed; but Greeks to demons, and Jews to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was detestable and worthy of condemnation; ^B but that of the Jews was acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and the Lord smelled the odor of sweetness, accepting the sweetness of the good intention and of the love toward Him; but the graven images of the Greeks, because they were fashioned for demons, are therefore rejected and disapproved. Furthermore, who could express the likeness of God, who is neither perceived, nor is He corporeal, and cannot be circumscribed, and lacks shape? It is, therefore, the height of folly and impiety to depict the image of God. For this reason, in the Old Testament the use of images was not frequent; but after God, through the bowels of His mercy, truly became man for our salvation—for He did not appear in the form of man as He appeared to Abraham, nor as He presented Himself visible to the prophets, but in truth He became man according to essence, and dwelt upon earth, and associated with men, and performed amazing deeds, suffered, was crucified, rose again, was assumed into heaven; and all these things truly happened, and were beheld by men, and for the memory and instruction of those who were not present then, everything was consigned in written records, so that we, hearing those things we did not see, might attain the blessedness of the Lord. ^C But because not all know letters, nor are they devoted to the study of reading, the Fathers decided that these things should be held up as a kind of trophy in images, which might remind us in a summary way. For instance: often, when we do not have in mind the Lord's sufferings, we look upon the image of Christ expressed on the cross, and coming to a recollection of His saving passion, we fall down and adore, not the material, but Him who is expressed in the image: just as we do not adore the material of the Gospel, nor the material of the cross, but the representation. Likewise, we say the same regarding the Mother of God: for the honor paid to her is referred to Him who took flesh from her.

^A Similarly, we also depict the noble deeds of the saints, that they may incite us to their fortitude and virtue, and their imitation, and to the glory of God. For as we have said, the honor we freely pay to the fellow servants of God is a sign of our affection toward our common Master. And the honor of the image passes to the prototype. This tradition is unwritten, just as praying toward the east, and venerating the cross, and many other things similar to these.

^B There is also a story current that when the Lord was reigning in the city of the Edessenes, Abgar sent a painter to paint an image of the Lord; and when the painter was unable to do so because of the dazzling splendor of His face, the Lord Himself pressed a cloth to His own divine and life-giving face, and imprinted His own likeness upon the cloth, and thus sent it to Abgar, who was consumed with this desire. That the apostles also handed down many things without writing, Paul, the apostle of the nations, writes: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistle" (2 Thess. ii, 14). And to the Corinthians: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. xi, 2).

*From Another.* ^C The prototypes of detestable idols are false; for they are called gods, when they are demons. But the prototypes of the venerable images are true. For of this one, Christ is the prototype, as He is man; of that one, the Mother of God; and of other images, the saints who are celebrated through them. And these are like their prototypes, and are therefore called images, as likenesses; but those [idols] are entirely alien to those they are said to be, and have no part in them. For what kind of image can there be of a non-existent thing? Therefore idols are so named as if they were such as appear to destroy those who worship them. And while idols are merely matter, images are also matter, but it is matter which has been made holy on account of the likenesses of the saints imprinted upon it.

TITLE XXIII.

^D After the fourth council at Chalcedon, the Armenians, having separated themselves from the Catholic Church through the persuasion of a certain Eranius, also called Mantacune, and the profane priests who were with him, and having accepted the heretical opinion of Eutyches and Dioscorus and the other Monophysites who claim that there is only one nature in Christ, they increased it with the addition of impious dogmas and made it more conspicuous. For they say that Christ did not take on a body consubstantial with us, but something incorruptible, and impassible, and subtle, and uncreated, and heavenly, and that He appeared to see, and to eat, and to drink, and to perform other human functions according to a phantasm. Again, they say that His very flesh, which was manifested, into the nature of

[GREEK COLUMN] ^A of the divinity, and became consubstantial with it. And just as a drop of honey or vinegar, if submerged in the vastness of the sea, is no longer seen, nor does it persist, so also that body, having been commingled and submerged in the ocean of the divinity, no longer preserves its own nature, nor retains its proper quality; and for this reason, they say, there are not two natures in Christ, but one, and that altogether the divinity. But they call it the body of the divinity, and when they are assailed by refutations and forced, they confess Christ to be God and man, but they do this in hypocrisy. For how do they in truth call him man, when they dogmatize that he is of a different essence ^B from us, as has been mentioned before? But all the things that were composed by our holy Fathers against the Monophysites were outlined summarily in the title of the present work against the Monophysites; and one must seek in that place the manifold and various refutations of that same heresy; but we shall mention here a few things as well, and those altogether irrefutable.

If there is one nature of the Word of God and of his flesh, and there is one nature of the Word of God and of the Father, how is there not one nature of the Father, and of the Word, and of the flesh?

If Christ is one composite nature after the union, and the Father is not of a composite nature, how shall Christ be consubstantial with the Father after the union?

If Christ is confessed to be God and man after the union, but not that he is man by the same nature by which he is God, how is he not two natures, by which he is both God and man?

If Christ is one nature, and this is the whole divinity, and the nature ^C of Christ could not be separated from the Father, it is clear that the flesh of Christ, when it was one in nature with Christ, was not separated from the Father at the time of death. And how then was he held here, and scourged, and cut, and pouring forth the signs of human nature, blood and water, and truly dying, and lying dead and motionless and circumscribed in the tomb?

If the flesh of Christ has become divinity, how did Christ himself say: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And how again did he say to Mary: Touch me not; for I have not yet ascended to my Father? And how also did he say to the apostles after the resurrection: Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, and ten thousand similar things which clearly and without any controversy declare the humanity assumed by him, at least to those who are wise, and not altogether foolish?

These men, who reject ^D the birth of Christ in the flesh and the mystery of the true humanity assumed [by him],

Title XXIII

and describe it as a simulation, they do not celebrate the Annunciation of the Theotokos on the same day as we do; for we celebrate it on the 25th of March, as the God-bearing Fathers, the great Athanasius and John Chrysostom, and those who were in their time and after them, have handed down to us; but they pretend to celebrate the Annunciation, the birth of Christ, and the baptism on the Nones of January, in a very brief space of time, in a simulated and obscure manner—not that they truly do so, but in order to deceive the more simple-minded, and not in accordance with the truth. ^A That Christ did not assume flesh from heaven, but from the pure and virginal blood of Mary the most-pure Theotokos, the evangelists openly teach. For Matthew says, *The birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: when his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit,* and what follows. ^B Then, having recounted accurately the things pertaining to his generation up to the arrival of the Magi, he says, *Entering the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they worshipped him.* Luke, however, starting a little further back, says, *A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This registration was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria; and all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be registered with Mary, who was betrothed to him as his wife, being pregnant.* ^C *And it happened that while they were there, the days were fulfilled for her to give birth, and she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.* There are also many other testimonies, both from the evangelical books as well as from the apostolic and other divinely-inspired Scriptures, by which the birth of our Lord and Savior from the Virgin is confirmed. For our Lord himself everywhere in the Gospel calls himself the Son of Man because of his true mother. And the divine Apostle, to omit others, says, *God sent forth his Son, born of a woman.* ^D If the body of Christ had been celestial, it would not have been subject to human affections—I mean those that are devoid of fault and blame, such as hunger, and thirst, and sleep, and weariness, and sorrow, and tears, and such like. If the man to whom the Word was united in person were celestial, he would not have been corruptible and mortal like earthly men. For all celestial beings who live are incorruptible and immortal. But this matter will be discussed more fully in the following title, which we have composed against the so-called Paulicians, in the chapter concerning the Theotokos, and in the chapter that immediately follows; for they, along with other maladies, are also afflicted with the contagion of this disease.

^A Since we read that Christ at the time of his death prayed, and that sweat like drops of blood flowed from his own body, by which he might manifest the nature of his own flesh, the Armenians have cunningly erased these sweats from the books of the Gospels, so that they might avoid the argument for the flesh assumed from the Virgin, which is taken from that passage, and might deny that the nature of the Savior is similar to the nature of men. But the Apostle Paul refutes them otherwise, saying: *Who in the days of his flesh, with prayers and supplications, offered up prayers and supplications to him who was able to save him from death, with a loud cry and tears, and what follows* (Heb. V, 7). For prayers, and supplications, and loud cries, and tears are an irrefragable proof of his flesh, which is consubstantial with us and subject to the same passions as it, yet without sin.

^B Regarding the addition which Peter the Fuller applied to the Trisagion hymn in the title against the Theopaschites, who assert that the Divinity suffered, it has already been spoken of. Moreover, the Armenians themselves also pronounce this addition in that hymn, in which matter they are indeed utterly ridiculous, for while they declare the body of Christ [to be] incorruptible, and impassible, and immortal, they teach that his Divinity is passible and mortal. For they are insane with the disease of the Aphthartodocetae and the Theopaschites at the same time; concerning whom, those things which seemed appropriate have been discussed in their own titles. Therefore, one must seek [the answer] in those places.

They reject the most impious Origen in part, but in part they receive him in their sacrifices as a great teacher. And when they are rebuked by the orthodox, they anathematize Origen himself, and Eutyches, and Dioscorus, ^C but nevertheless they hold fast to their impious opinions and doctrines.

Concerning Unleavened Bread

In the holy office they do not employ bread, as we do, but unleavened bread. But unleavened bread is altogether Jewish. Although the Apostle Paul and Gregory the Theologian have said: *The old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.* And although Chrysostom, speaking about the Old and New Testament, says: "There is the letter, here is the spirit; there is the ark, here the Virgin; there is the rod of Aaron, here the Cross; there is the unleavened bread, here the bread." But, they say, the bread which Christ shared with the apostles was unleavened. ^D This, to be sure, the time then required, and for that reason we also offer unleavened bread for the sacrifice. To whom we reply: Even if we grant that that bread was unleavened, Christ, however, due to the exigency of the time—lest the mystery of the new supper remain uncommunicated (for he was to be handed over to the Jews shortly after)—distributed such bread as he found, so that we might not be utterly deprived of such a salvation; but his disciples, and those who were holy Fathers of the Churches thereafter, offered bread in sacrifice, whom we also following

^A offer bread. Many other things, too, Christ delivered in one way, but the apostles and their successors after them ordained that these things be done in another way, not as contradicting Christ—for how could that happen?—but, since the faith was now being propagated and increased, they themselves were to magnify the mysteries of Christ for his glory and greatness. For example: when Christ was to be baptized, he did not turn toward the west, renouncing Satan with a loud voice, nor did he turn toward the east, glorifying God; nor did he pronounce the creed of the faith, nor did he receive the baptismal prayers, nor was he baptized in a font, nor was he anointed with oil or myrrh, nor immediately upon being baptized did he partake of the Lord’s body and blood. But we, when ^B we are baptized, perform or experience all the things just mentioned. And again, Christ did not hand down the mystery of the spiritual sacrifice—that is, the Lord’s body and blood—in a church, or in a common upper room, or at a common table, and after he had eaten other foods, and while reclining, clothed neither in priestly vestments nor using the sequence of our sacred office with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Conversely, we perform the sacred office in church, upon the spiritual altar—I mean the holy table—fasting, and standing, and clad in priestly vestments, and using psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. For the variations of times ^C are wont often to change matters and to innovate upon older things, not indeed that those things might be abolished, but rather that they might be brought into a better order, one more convenient for liberty and for certain principles. For the apostles and the true pastors after them, and the righteous teachers of the Churches, being entirely led by the Spirit of God and illumined by Him, changed some things and amplified others, having received such grace from above, and in all things providing for usefulness and ordering and arranging all things with the love of God. But when we have investigated the matter more accurately, the bread which Christ communicated to the apostles was not unleavened. For the law concerning the celebrating of the Passover ^D says thus: "On the fourteenth of the first month, toward evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first of the month, toward evening. Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses." These, then, are the things of the Law; but Christ, before the fourteenth day, that is to say on the thirteenth, finished the legal Passover and handed down the mystic supper, on which day it was permitted for all to use leavened bread without hindrance. But if anyone should say: "And yet, while performing the legal Passover at that time, he himself and his disciples ate unleavened bread with bitter herbs; whence, then, did they have the unleavened bread at that time?" We shall answer him: "It is probable that these had already been prepared beforehand by the command of the Savior, or by the kindness of the master of the house, who was himself a believer." Furthermore, in the sacred supper they do not offer wine tempered with water, but unmixed, and without any water [at all]

mixed in, while we, by tempering the wine with water, signify the one nature in Christ in this way. They bring forward Chrysostom, who prohibited water in his *Exposition of the Gospel of Matthew*. But we, tempering wine with water, perform the priestly office and partake, manifesting the union of the two natures in Christ. For Gregory the Theologian also says: "Blood and water flowing from the side, the former as of a man, the latter as above a man." Chrysostom, moreover, seeing the disciples of Marcion of Pontus offering water only (for on this very account they were called *Hydroparastai*), forbade the offering of water, condemning not the offering of wine and water, but the offering of water alone after their example. That he approved of the wine and water being mixed and offered, he clearly showed in his *Exposition of the Gospel of John*, saying: "When you approach the altar and partake of the blood of Christ from the cup, reckon that you have applied your mouth to the side of Christ, and are drinking from his side." And from the side of Christ, not only blood but also water flowed forth for the confirmation of the two natures in him, as we have said above. That the cup from which Christ gave drink to the apostles was also tempered with wine and water, the brother of the Lord, James the apostle, and Mark the evangelist bear witness in their liturgies, both saying thus: "Taking the cup, and having tempered it with wine ^B and water, giving thanks and blessing, he gave to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you; this is my blood which is shed for you and for many." For surely, as the truthful and foreknowing God, he imparted to the disciples the very kind of thing that was about to be shed. And the synod held at Carthage also decreed that nothing more should be offered in the sacred supper than what the Lord imparted, that is, bread and wine tempered with water.

Our Lord Jesus Christ put an end to the sacrifices of animals when he gave the mystical supper to the disciples and said: "Do this in my remembrance" (§), that is, not the Jewish [sacrifice], but that which was then mystically handed down. The Armenians, however, perform the contrary, sacrificing oxen, and lambs, and sheep according to the Jewish cult, and anointing the doorposts with the blood of the victims, placing the hope of their salvation rather in these things. Wherefore, even in the celebration of Easter ^C they do not partake of the Lord's body and blood, but of a lamb, which they sacrifice in the Jewish manner, and eat roasted by fire, and thus they hope to be sanctified and to receive forgiveness of sins. That an end has been put to such sacrifices, you will find in that title which was written against the Hebrews.

The cross, although it consists of matter, they do not honor or adore before they have washed it as a human being, and fixed a nail in the middle of it, and anointed it with the blood of the sacrifice, although through the hand ^D

^A of one who traces the cross in the air, the cross sanctifies all things to which it is applied—I speak of the water of baptism, the oil, the chrism, the faces of the believers, the mystical bread, the holy cup, and the rest, so that I may not lengthen the argument by counting them one by one. How is it that the form of the cross, made of any material whatsoever, is sanctified by you through baptism, nails, and blood, as if it were some common and profane thing? And how is it that the cross, which sanctifies both baptism and the [divine] essence, is itself sanctified by these things that are being sanctified? For just as before Christ was crucified the cross was an execrable instrument of death, and its form was to be avoided and detested, so after Christ was affixed to it, and it was sprinkled with the Master's blood and water, it was itself sanctified, and its form became a means of sanctification for all the faithful—at first taking away a man, but later expelling the demons. If, therefore, that first cross, which was the prototype, became holy, as has been said, because the Master was affixed to it, just as David taught when he said, *And worship at the footstool of his feet, for it is holy* (Ps. XCVIII, 5)—for he called this [the cross] the footstool because his adorable feet were fixed to it—then every form of it is also holy, whether it be traced in the air by the hand or made of some material. For these are images of the prototype; and just as the icon of Christ is holy, not because of the material that received it, but because of the character and form of Christ, so also the form of the cross is an image of the prototype because of its shape and likeness, and for this reason it is venerable and precious. For the honor paid to the image, as the great Basil says, passes to the prototype. ^B Therefore, even the divine Gregory, the prelate of Great Armenia, before all others ordered wooden crosses set up by him in certain places to be adored, and for men to flee to them as to sacred refuges, even though he had not yet been declared a high priest, nor had he consecrated them with any baptism, nail, or blood. But they fix the nail in the cross in the name of Christ to show that it is one of the Trinity that was crucified—that is, His divine nature. And since the divine nature of Christ is also the nature of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, they crucify the Father and the Holy Spirit along with Him, even if they do not openly confess it. You will find more extensively concerning the cross in the following title, in that chapter which is inscribed *Concerning the Cross*.

They make three wooden crosses and, joining them together, call them the Holy Trinity, not shuddering to fashion images of the blessed Trinity, which alone is uncreated, infinite, and indefinite, and altogether inconceivable. For images ^C are images of visible and finite things. But how could one fashion an image of that whose prototype does not fall under sight or understanding at all?

^A For this reason, by what name shall we call them? Wood-worshippers or idol-worshippers? For both names fit them. And for another reason, they confess that the Trinity was crucified, by joining three crosses together and proclaiming this by their deeds. What could be more foolish or more godless than this error?

^B Furthermore, since, as has been said, they set up three crosses as idols and impose upon them the fearful name of the incomprehensible Trinity, they are not ashamed to call us idol-worshippers instead, because we fashion images of Jesus Christ, who assumed humanity and willed to be seen, comprehended, and circumscribed so far as pertains to his humanity, and [images] of the Mother of God and the saints, whose bodies were not only visible and finite, but also mortal. But it has been treated more fully concerning the holy images in the Title against the Iconoclasts; seek there the difference between idols and images.

The faith of the Armenians is as adulterated and godless as their baptism, and all their initiation and every mystery. For a corrupt tree does not bear good fruit, as the Lord has declared.

^C If it is asked of the Armenians by us what the fast of the "Artzourtzi" is, they reply that it is of a certain Sergius, an Armenian who was martyred in their region. To them we say: "And what is the proof, and whence is it clear that this Sergius was orthodox, since you are heretical and celebrate the memory of no prophet, no apostle, no martyr, no holy one, nor any of the saints at all, not even that of the most blessed Gregory himself, the high priest of Greater Armenia?" ^D And shifting their ground, they say that it is the fast of Nineveh. And again we say: "Since neither the holy apostles nor any council of the holy Fathers has mentioned it, who commanded you to observe a fast of the nations that occurred many years before the incarnation of Christ? If we are forbidden to observe the Jewish fasts established by God through Moses, much less [should we observe] the fasts of the lawless nations."

Being thus openly refuted, they retreat again, saying that this is the fast of Adam, which he kept when he was cast out of the delights of Paradise. And we say again that Moses, having written concerning the creation of the world and all things pertaining to Adam, has made no mention whatsoever of this fast. And whence have you to say that this is Adam's? Then they shift to another [claim], that this is the fast of Great Armenia, which the Armenians fasted when they were about to be baptized by the great Gregory. But here, too, their lie is refuted. For, being harassed by demons before their baptism, they decreed to fast for sixty days; afterward, when he was about to baptize them, he prescribed for them a fast of thirty days, as [can be found] in the very books of the Armenians.

[A] ^A baptized them with a thirty-day fast, as is written in the Armenian books, and none of these is the Artziburtzi. But, being refuted from this point onward, they assert that it is that of the Great Constantine, which he observed when he was about to be baptized. And this, too, is utterly false. For what has the fast of a single emperor to do with the whole inhabited world? And how is it that no one among the synods or holy Fathers after the Great Constantine ever made mention of it? Since they say different things at different times, and are driven from place to place everywhere, and are unable to stand firmly, they allow us to understand that such a fast is detestable and unworthy of Christian hearing. I, however, have heard something like this about it: that a certain Sergius, having become a teacher of the Armenian heresy, had a dog to which he had given this name, Artziburtzi; the word signifies "precursor." Sergius frequently used this dog as a guide and, as it were, a counselor of his travels, while it was being acted upon by a demon, whenever he was about to visit any of the towns, villages, or hamlets in which his disciples and sharers in his corruption dwelt. And when they saw this dog, they would go out after a day to meet the master at a distance of some miles. But once, when the dog was sent out for this customary service, it was devoured by wolves; and on the following day, when Sergius was traveling to those to whom he had sent the dog and no one came out to meet him as usual, he was indignant. And when he had reached them and learned that the dog, his precursor, had not come to them, he sent to search for it; and upon discovering from the finding of its bones that it had been mangled by wolves, he ordered all the Armenians to fast for the death of his dog, and commanded that they should remain in mourning and squalor for a fixed space of days every year. And they called this fast Artziburtzi. ^B

Title XXIV.

Against the Paulicians, from the writings of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Samosata is a city of Syria, in which the error of the Manichaeans formerly flourished. There was a certain woman in this city named Callinice ^C who, having drunk up the entire mire of the Manichaean heresy, bore two sons, Paul and John. These, imitating their mother, drank in the pure poison of this apostasy. The other deserters of the truth, observing them to be eminent in impiety and active and energetic, appointed them as heralds and leaders. These men, having also devised other absurd, detestable, and pernicious dogmas, established the heresy of the Paulicians, which is a part of the Manichaean madness, but one increased by certain additions. From these two names, Paul and John, ^D the appellation of "Paulicians" was somewhat barbarously composed; for, whereas they ought to have been called "Paul-Johnites," they are named Paulicians. But as time went on, they took to themselves another companion and teacher of their apostasy, who, while called Constantine, wished to be named Sylvanus. And the satellites of this apostasy place him far before the sons of Callinice. Indeed, as one most cunning in those matters,

^A he dared not commit his heretical opinions to writing, but by constant teaching he secured his disciples, and established the rites of his impiety to be kept inviolate by those who had been initiated. ^B However, the Gospel and the Apostle, which the faithful people of the Christians also embrace and honor, he set forth in writing to them; and as regards the words, he changed absolutely nothing, nor did he corrupt the form of the language, as Valentinus ^C and others did, but he distorted the actual meaning of piety, shattering it and twisting it entirely to conform to the opinion of his own apostasy. And, as has been said, he permitted the words of the divine Gospel and the Apostle to be kept, neither audaciously harming them by additions nor by subtractions; but he attached to them and injected meanings to which none of the sacred words are appropriate, nor is any consistency seen in them, for they war against one another and stand in opposition. Having thus set these things forth, he allowed no other doctrine to be read by them except the Gospel and Paul. But he too, after some time, perished, more in soul than in body; and after Sylvanus, Simeon, who preferred to be called Titus, was the master of their impious teaching. Then an Armenian named Genesius, who changed his name to Timotheus; and a fourth, Joseph, who changed his into Epaphroditus. After him, Zacharias, whom no small part of the heresy considers a hireling and unworthy to have held the office of teacher among them. Besides, the squalid man Manes was added. The final evil was brought by Sergius, who took for himself the name of Tychicus. Such then were the masters of their defection, from the time when this heresy obtained its name from Paul and John, up to the present day. Note, however, that those who are zealous for this heresy, if one asks them to repudiate and condemn the authors of their nonsensical sect, readily detest Manes, and Paul, and John, and certain others; ^D but they can by no means be brought to detest Constantine, whom they also call Sylvanus, and Simeon, or Titus, and Genesius, or Timotheus, and Joseph, or Epaphroditus, and the squalid Baanes, and Sergius, or Tychicus; nay, they even consider them as apostles of Christ and embrace and accept them as teachers of pious doctrine. Yet they do not all embrace those whom we have mentioned in the same way, but all of them venerate as gods those up to Baanes and Sergius. Afterward, however, they are divided into two contrary parts, some placing Baanes and others Sergius into the number of the gods; and in this contention they proceed so far that they come to arms and slaughter. They enumerate six of their own Churches, of which they call one Macedonia, another Achaia, a third Philippians, a fourth Laodiceans, a fifth Ephesians, and the last Colossians. Indeed, these are the names of cities, concerning which both ancient history and Paul make mention. But they, striving to do nothing without deceit and gain, do not fear to assert even things which are refuted by the eyes. They call Macedonia a small town of the colony whose name is Cimossa,

in which Silvanus taught the apostasy. Manalis is a village of the Samosatenes, which served as a workshop for the teaching of Genesius, who is also called Timothy. ^A This they call Achaia. Those who became disciples of Joseph, or Epaphroditus, or Zacharias, the hireling shepherd according to them, these they ascribe to the Philippians. To those in the small town of Argai they proclaim the Laodiceans, ^B and they transform those in Mopsuestia into the Ephesians, just as they also refer those called the Cynochoritae to the Colossians. And the system and the teaching of these three churches they attribute to Sergius, who is also Tychicus. But while the teachers and their so-called churches are among these, this complex mindset of the heresy is composed not of one single error, but of many and various ones. For they acknowledge two ^C principles, like the Manichaeans; and they say that one is God the heavenly Father, whom they indeed remove from the authority of this whole universe, entrusting to him only the power of the future; and another is the creator of the world, to whom they grant the authority of the present age. And these thrice-accursed ones call those who are truly Christians "Romans," while they arrogate to themselves the name of Christians, from which they are as far removed as possible. They speak of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—phrases which are indeed pious—but they inject the ultimate impiety into them. For they do not profess them in the same sense as the catholic and apostolic Church of God, but having torn the words away from there, they label them with most ungodly concepts. And they readily say that there should be an anathema on those who do not believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while not proclaiming the Father as the Almighty and maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, but calling him the heavenly Father, they immediately ^D follow this up by assigning to him the lordship and power over neither heaven nor the things within it, in any way whatsoever. Some, however, entrust the oversight of heaven to him, but no longer that of the things contained within it. And this is the first head of their impiety. But those wicked men do not shudder to speak blasphemies against our all-holy Lady Theotokos—things which it is not permitted to write or even to hear—saying: "We believe in the holy Theotokos, into whom the Lord entered and from whom he went forth." And through these words they suggest the Jerusalem above, into which Christ has entered as a forerunner for us, as also the divine Apostle says. At times, when forced to confess that Christ proceeded from the Virgin, they say he took a body from heaven and passed through her as through a channel. And others contend that the immaculate and most chaste Virgin even bore other children by Joseph after that saving birth. Similarly, they also treat the communion of the precious body and blood of Christ our God with innumerable insults, claiming they receive it when they say that the body and blood are those words of the Lord which, when he was handing them over with the disciples, he pronounced, namely: "Take, eat, and drink"; for they do not

bring forward bread or wine. And they blaspheme the life-giving cross, while saying that they worship it and accept it, the deceivers, and that he himself, they say, stretched out his hands in the shape of a cross. But the true cross, they say, is wood and an instrument of the execution of criminals and is subject to a curse, and therefore it is not to be worshiped and kissed. ^B And they even turn away from the holy prophets and all the Old Testament, and the other saints, calling them robbers and thieves. But especially do they blaspheme the leader of the apostles, Peter, because he denied the faith into his master and Christ, although their master Manes cries out openly to them and says: "I am not a stranger to mercy, as Christ said: 'Whoever denies me before men, I will also deny him.'" But I say: "Whoever denies me, I will receive him with joy, and I will consider his denial and falsehood a guard and preservation of my profession."

Since they behave in this way, and a thousand times deny their own faith, yet they reject and repudiate and turn away from Peter, who, being struck by terror at the same time and suffering some human weakness, fell into denial—and they do this not for the reason which they pretend, but for that which they keep silent and conceal: because he foretold their apostasy, saying: ^C "Strive to be found by him spotless and blameless in peace; and count the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are some things difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." For these oracles of the prince of the apostles were spoken beforehand against the audacity and impiety of these men, who twist the words of the Lord, as well as those of the apostles and other Scriptures, such as the Acts of the Apostles and what we call the Catholic Epistles, except for those that are Peter’s—which, as we said, they do not accept even by a word—to their own destruction. ^D Although they do not receive all the Acts of the Apostles and the remaining Catholic epistles, yet some do receive them, but they all with one consent reject the prophets and the Old Testament and all the saints who were illustrious therein, and the prince of the apostles. They call their assemblies the Catholic Church, especially when they gather to pray and to inquire into things that pertain to religion; for they call their prayers "assemblies." Indeed, although they disdain baptism, they pretend to accept it; for they consider the words of the Gospel to be baptism, since the Lord says, "I am the living water." Nevertheless, when they fall into some more serious illness, they place upon themselves even the precious and salutary cross, fashioned from wood. Then if

^A they should recover, they break it, or trample it underfoot, or cast it away. But they often deem their children worthy to be illuminated by the salutary baptism at the hands of the presbyters of the Church, judging that the cross and baptism are beneficial to the body, yet they consider them unworthy of any further benefit; nor do they believe that their power extends to the purification of the soul or any other such benefit. Many of them also receive the communion of the precious Body and Blood of Christ our God, for the sake of deceiving the simpler folk.

Furthermore, they do not accept the presbyters of the Catholic Church, nor its other priests, because, they say, it was the priests and the elders of the people who formed the council against Christ. However, those among them who occupy the order of priests they do not call priests, but instead name them "traveling companions" and "notaries." ^B These men do not show themselves to be distinguished from the common people by their dress, nor by their diet, nor by any other way of living that marks a more venerable life. They do not hesitate to venerate our Gospel, provided the figure of the precious cross is not imprinted upon it, but not on that part of the book where the image of the cross might be. They say, rather, that they venerate the book as containing the words of the Lord.

But as far as matters of doctrine are concerned, they are thus impious, and totally at variance both with the truth and among themselves. The life of these people is full of licentiousness, full of unspeakable pollutions and unimaginable filth. They engage in the commingling of both natures, using them for every unspeakable act without any shame; indeed, it is said that some of them even have relations with their own mothers. ^C They have their whole life given over to drunkenness and lewdness, and they embrace every other corruption of morals.

Now, concerning that unhappy Tychicus, I shall mention what is commonly reported. He pretended that he himself was that Tychicus who is often mentioned in the Apostle’s Epistles and of whom there is mention with praise in many places. He feigned that he had been sent as a messenger by Paul to them, so that whatever he said and proclaimed might appear not to be from his own wisdom, but the decrees of Paul who taught and commanded, even though he was born five hundred years after Paul and Tychicus.

It must be known that I, who have gathered these chapters which are contained in this title, have set them down partly in their entirety, and partly, in order to avoid excessive length, have ^D comprehended them in a summary. I have omitted those things from the writings of the patriarch whom I mentioned before which were either too profound or too imperfect to be of much use or pleasure to a few. However, I have retained the same sentiments, although in other words and other modes of expression. The arguments, however, are derived both from the Gospels and from the words of the Apostle Paul; for the defenders of this heresy venerate and approve only these. But that there are not two principles, although it has been demonstrated in the title against the Manichaeans, it shall also be demonstrated here at present. But first, one must speak of evil, which this impious breed of wickedness has fashioned as the principle of evil and the author of all things that are in the world.

^A They say that this evil principle was born from darkness and fire. We must ask them: why were darkness alone, or fire alone, not sufficient to generate it? Who gathered these together to generate an evil principle? Why are these two not rather the principles? And how did it come to pass, and what is its nature, that which came forth from them snatched for itself the principle?

If fire is perceptible to the senses, whose work is it? If it is the work of evil, how can they say that evil proceeded from it and from darkness? If it is of the good, how can they deny that anything perceptible to the senses proceeded from the good? For they cannot say that evil came from intelligible things, since they attribute all intelligible things to the good. It is therefore necessary for them, while they avoid attributing the origin of fire to evil—lest they be exposed—to call the same thing sometimes the creator and sometimes the creature, or else to confess, even against their will, that fire also proceeded from the good. ^B For since sensible fire exists, even though they dwell in darkness, they will nevertheless say that it is neither without a beginning nor eternal.

That there are not two principles, but one creator of heaven and earth and of the things between them.

Some of them concede that the good God is the author of heaven alone, and they introduce another creator for the earth and the things that are between them. Others among them (for their error is manifold) have dared to say that heaven itself and all things in between are the work of the enemy. But if, according to their stupefaction, the heaven is the work of the evil one, how does the good God rest in the heavens which were created by the evil one? And how does our Savior, when teaching the method of prayer and handing down that admirable and venerable prayer, say: *Our Father, who art in heaven*, and, *Thy will be done as in heaven and on earth*? And again: *Whoever may do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother*? And what need is there to recount the instances in which the Savior calls the Father heavenly and Him who is in heaven? Yet I wonder why the impudence of the adversaries is not overwhelmed, when the Savior says more clearly: *I confess to thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.* ^D For He declares Him to be not only the Lord of heaven, but also of the earth. What is clearer than this testimony? What is more powerful

to close the mouth of those who fight against God and the apostasy? And to Peter ^B too, the Savior says, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and what follows. Observe also this: "Jesus, when He was baptized, went up immediately from the water." How is it that the good Son of the good Father, having been baptized in the creation of the evil one, goes up from it? And, "Lo, the heavens were opened." Another creation, again, of the evil hand, according to them! But why ^C were they opened, and for what reason? "He saw the Spirit of God," He says, "descending like a dove." This is the third triumph over their impiety in a few words. For how is the Spirit of God fashioned within the creation of the evil one, and how does He come down from the works of the enemy, and, coming down from there, come upon Jesus? And a fourth pillar of impiety: a voice is given from the heavens, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Consider, I pray you, beloved, how each word brings forth the inescapable proof against this impiety. "This," He says, "is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Who? This One who is being baptized in the water, to whom the heavens were opened, upon whom My Spirit, in the form of a dove descending from the heavens, bears witness to the sonship of the One being baptized. All things are Mine through My own ^D creations. My Son, fulfilling My will, accomplishes the salvation of the world, with the authority of the Spirit alone accompanying Him, being of the same nature, and in very deed declaring Himself to be the genuine Son.

If He who knows the Father, and the things that are of the Father, more than all others, calls heaven the throne of God, the earth His footstool, and Jerusalem His city, how is it not the height of impiety—of which the Son is the witness—that some should strip these from Him and constitute another as their author? For Christ, who is God, all of whose deeds and words pertain to our salvation, when He removed the oath from human life as an entrance to perjury, says, "But I say to you, do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; nor shall you swear by your head," He says, "because you cannot make one hair white or black." He calls the head, and Jerusalem, and the earth, and the heaven—the sensible things judged by sight, which it was the custom of the Jews to swear by—these things. Do not let madness again turn the head, and Jerusalem, and the earth, and the heaven into myths and nonsense, as it is accustomed to do in many cases out of perplexity. For the heaven which we see, and the sensible earth, and Jerusalem—which was indeed built long ago, and which generations later David rebuilt and fortified—these He calls the throne, and the footstool, and the city of the great King. But of what King He speaks, He Himself demonstrates more clearly elsewhere, saying, "Do not make the house of My Father a house of merchandise."

^A Calling the temple in Jerusalem the house of the Father, for which reason He also calls Jerusalem the city of the King. For Him whom He declared to be the great King in the prohibition to the merchants, He here declares to be His own Father. Wherefore He also drives out those who were selling the oxen and the sheep and the doves, in order to cleanse the paternal house from that commercial filth, and He threatens them with just indignation, as having found them to be despisers both of the paternal house and of the paternal command.

"Love," says the Savior, "your enemies, do good to those who hate you, that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and rains on the just and the unjust. Be therefore perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." ^B The perfect Father, therefore, whom the Son by nature Himself urges us to imitate, is He and no other—He who makes this sun, which we see, to rise, and provides sensible light to us who are gifted with senses, and rains on the just and the unjust so that the fruits of the earth may be gathered, and if by any means the air which we use for breathing should become heavier because of dryness, it is brought back to a temperate state through the moisture of the rain. Where, then, are those godless dividers of the kingdom of God—which cannot be divided—who designate one creator of the earth, and the air, and the rains, and the sun, and other things of the same kind, but another of the intelligible things?

^C If first David, inspired by the divine Spirit, and afterward the divine Paul with a clear voice, says that that God who was preached by Moses speaks thus to our Lord Jesus Christ: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You," for Paul, writing to the Hebrews, adopts this paternal testimony for our Savior, which was pronounced beforehand by David, as has been said; and again, "And let all the angels of God worship Him," and further, "And You, Lord, in the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands," and the rest; if these things were spoken in the Spirit by the divine father David, and were confirmed by the mystic and guide of the ineffable mysteries, proving that the God of the Old Testament is the same as He who also established all the orders of angels as worshipers and servants of the Son, and the same and no other as He who founded the earth and whose works of His hands are the heavens, how do they not involve themselves in every impiety, those who say that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is one, and He who created the heaven and the earth is another?

Explaining the parable of the one sowing the good seed in His field, the Savior says: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of man, and the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. But the tares

are the sons of the wicked one. And the enemy who sowed them is the devil." Do you hear how He calls the world His own, and the seed in it likewise His own, whom He also calls the sons of the kingdom, and assigns only the sowing of the tares to the enemy? And in the following passages He openly proclaims the world to be His own kingdom. How? "At the close," He says, "of this age," and not of the future one, "the Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom"—that is, out of the present world—"the stumbling blocks." For in the future and unending age, neither are tares sown and grown, nor do stumbling blocks exist, such that the angels of the Son of man should gather them out of it. ^B Since even after their gathering out of the world, they are cast into the furnace of fire, and then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. What could be clearer or more powerful than these words of the Lord, by which both the world and the things in it are declared to be those of Christ and our Savior, and He Himself is proclaimed as King of both the future and the present kingdom?

"All authority," He says, "has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." How, then, did He receive from the Father the authority over heaven and earth, of which the Giver was not Lord, as those people foolishly claim? And if fields and houses are in the hand of the wicked one, how could the good God have promised to those who have eagerly followed Him that He would provide, in addition to eternal goods, fields and houses, if they are evil and belong to an evil maker, and of which He Himself can be neither Lord nor establish others as lords?

The same Apostle, in preaching the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Him, the true Son, as the Creator of all things, no less declares this in those places where he celebrates the grace given to him and the power of the mystery entrusted to him. For having said, "To me, the least of all, was this grace given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all, what is the stewardship of the mystery hidden from the ages in God," he immediately adds: "who created all things through Jesus Christ." Thus, the Father is the Creator of all things, and the Son is the Creator of all things. For common and undifferentiated, just as are the nature, the authority, the kingdom, and the power, so also is the creation of all things, both visible and invisible, and their bringing forth from non-being into existence and their constitution. ^C

Elsewhere, speaking about divine matters, Paul says: "One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all us." But knowing that, just as the nature and the will, so also the creation and the empire of the Father and the Son are not disjointed or separated, he boldly proclaims the same also concerning the Savior, with a clear voice: "For in Him," he says, "all things were created," namely, those in the heavens and those on the earth. And lest the madness of those people [should suggest] other trifles by these words... ^D

author for visible things and another for invisible ones, [consider that] divine Paul says, "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." By "things that are made," he means the present world and all that falls under the senses. For if these were not of the good God, but of the evil one, how could the invisible things of God, and His eternal power and divinity, be perceived through the works of the evil one?

If, as the blasphemous and impious tongue dares to say, earthly things ^B are of the evil one, how are they said to be our common Lord and Savior's? "He came into His own," he says, "and His own did not receive Him." But if the deserters should say that by "His own" are meant the prophetic discourses, and that Christ came to them, and they did not receive Him—observe their exceeding folly and impudence! First, how do they say that the prophetic discourses are Christ's own, when they say the prophets themselves are figments of the evil one, and that they received inspiration from him? Second, how did Christ come into the prophetic discourses? For he would have come to alien things, according to their opinion; for the prophetic discourses are alien, as being inspired by an alien [power] and not from the good God. Furthermore, to whom did God give the power to become children of God? Is it to the prophetic discourses? What nonsense is this! For if the discourses are from God, they have from Him the quality ^C of being God's own; but if they are from the evil one, how could they be engendered to God? Moreover, what prophetic discourse was born of blood, or of the will of man, or of the will of the flesh? For he adds: "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God." Who, then, are the discourses born of blood, and who are not?

It remains, therefore, that by "His own" the world must be understood, just as He addresses the disciples elsewhere: "Behold," He says, "the hour comes, that you shall be scattered, every man to his own." What does He call "his own" here? The prophetic discourses, or the possessions and houses of each? Just as here He does not, as those madmen babble, call the prophetic discourses "his own," but each man's ^D possession and house, so too when He said: "He came into His own, and His own did not receive Him," He understood by "His own" the sensible world; for this is His own possession and work. Similarly [He understood] those who are in it, of whom some received His instruction, and others did not. And elsewhere He says again, "A prophet has no honor in his own country." That by "His own" He means the world, it is possible to clearly discern from these words. "For," he says, "the true light was, which lightens every man coming into this world,"—this one, I say, exposed to the senses. But when

did He illuminate? When He arrived in it. And when did He arrive, the Gospel cries out: "For He was in the world," it says. For being in the sensible world, He was illuminating the one coming into the sensible world. Then, of whom was the world the creation, in which He was ^A and [in which] He was illuminating the one coming into it, it is not possible to learn from elsewhere than from these very evangelical words. For the world, it says, was made through Him, and the world did not know Him—which is the same as the words: "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not."

^B If earthly things are of the evil one, why did He satisfy many thousands of men with the fruits which the earth—the work of the evil one—produced, once indeed with five loaves, and again with seven? For how much better and more worthy of God would it have been to feed those whom He was instructing, not with the fruits of others, but with His own creations? Or rather, why did He himself offer as food or drink that which was the fruit of the works of the evil one? And how could He have commanded us to ask for our daily bread from the good Father? And again, why, when creating eyes for the blind man, did He create the vision not from another material, but from earth and water, which were of the evil one, almost as if sharing the matter with the enemy, by leaving the greater part to him to provide, while He Himself completed the part from another's material, as if lacking His own? And yet, if nothing else, at least this very thing ought to have shamed the miserable heretics and led them to understand that indeed He who fashioned the eye from clay is the very same who from the beginning formed man from clay. For of whatever material the part is, of the same is the whole, and he who had the whole as Creator, the same also had the part.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, as He approached His passion, declared Himself to His disciples the Lord of the ass and the colt. For they are indeed His works, and subject to His lordship and dominion, just as the world and the things in it, and thus these also. Therefore He says: "If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord has need of them." But the apostasy of these heretics cannot endure this, but, snatching them from His power, assigns them under the creation of the evil one.

^D This which these impious men bring forward in support of their own impiety—that the evil one is the ruler of earthly things, being deceived by the fact that he himself, when showing Christ all the kingdoms of the world, said: "All these I will give to you, if you fall down and worship me"—this itself ought to have indicated to them that the evil one is the lord of none of them. For being a liar, and the father of lies, and having never stood in the truth, as our Lord taught, he denied himself to be the ruler of earthly things.

That there is one Creator of the body and the soul, that is, of the human being.

^A If, as those madmen think, the good one creates the soul, but the evil one the body, how does the good one suffer his own work to be joined with the work of the evil one; or how does the evil one endure this conjunction? For the conjunction will either make the body good, since it is not fitting that the good one should render the work of the evil one good, or it will make the soul evil, which is even more absurd, that the work of the good should be depraved by the work of the evil. Furthermore, what fellowship hath light with darkness, or what concord hath God with Belial (II Cor. vi, 14, 15)?

If the evil one can lay snares for us, and we are able to decline them by both soul and body, then the body—which can both beware of his snares and also overcome and overthrow all his impulsive attacks—is not his work; nor would the evil one himself, if the body were made by him, rise up against himself. Therefore, the workmanship of the soul and the body cannot be referred to opposing principles.

If the body is a creation of the evil one, how do we through it perform the greatest of good works—temperance, continence, vigils, standing in prayer, endurance against terrors, and the labors of martyrdom—which, being acts of the body rather than of the soul, are referred to the glory of the Creator? How then does the creation of the evil one perform the things that are good, and provide itself as a companion to the soul to perform those things which, were it not present, it is judged could not be performed?

^C If the body is a figment of the evil one, how does Paul, who fought so brilliantly against the evil one, call it holy? The unmarried woman, he says, is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit (I Cor. vii, 34). But if the body is holy, how is it evil, and how is it the work of an evil creation? For evil actions, corrupting the figment of the good God, subject it to the evil one and make it his own; but if it remains in the laws of its Maker, it has the power rather to pursue and overcome the evil one than to be reduced to his servitude.

^D If the body was fashioned by the evil one, why did Christ weep for the body of Lazarus, which had perished? And why did He wish to bind together, animate, and call back to life the dissolved work of the evil one? And why, having invoked His own Father, did He Himself restore to life the figment of the evil one that had been well-nigh destroyed? Why did He also raise others who were dead? And why did He perform the other divine signs by which He healed the bodies of sick people? Do not the lepers, the paralytics, the lame, the deaf, the blind, and the innumerable kinds of ailments and diseases from which He freed the bodies of men suffice to put to shame those who say that the bodies of men are the workmanship of the evil one? For how would the good God have restored the corrupted figment of the enemy, and not only have healed those coming to Him, but even have gone to them Himself? For Jesus went about

^A all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and healing every disease and every infirmity. He did not, however, merely heal them and then keep the healing silent, but he often even commanded them to proclaim it. For "Go," he says, "and tell John: The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised." He also gave to his disciples a sign of his power, strength, and grace, namely, to lay hands upon the sick and heal them. Thus, Christ our God, who came to save both soul and body, exercised care over His own figment. And He did not limit the good work to Himself, but gave the disciples power to do the same.

If the body were of the evil one, why was Paul ^B distressed when his disciple was sick, and why, upon his recovery, did he say that God had mercy on him, "and not on him only, but also on me, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow"? For why should Paul have been distressed, seeing the figment of the evil one being dissolved? And how did he instruct Timothy, writing: "Use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent infirmities"? For he should rather have written the opposite: "Do not use wine at all, so that the figment of the evil one might be broken the sooner, and you might be freed from its burden."

If the body is of the evil one, how was Christ magnified in Paul's body? And how, again, does Paul himself—if the body is not the figment of the good God—pray that the body might be kept whole until the coming of the Lord, saying: ^C "May your whole spirit, and soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

If the soul were the work of one principle and the body of another, why does our true Creator and God, wishing His worshippers to be without anxiety, admonish them concerning both, saying: "Do not be anxious for your soul, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor for your body, what you shall put on"? Then, drawing us further toward instruction by example, He says: "Look at the birds of the heaven, that they do not sow, nor do they reap, and whence is life to them? Your heavenly Father feeds them." If, therefore, the Source of truth both knows and says that our heavenly Father feeds the birds of the heaven, and also says that the grass of the field, which is cast into the ^D furnace, is adorned by the same God with such beauty as not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed; how do the unbridled mouths of impiety assign one creator for the grass, and the birds, and the body, and all sensible things, while granting the half-formed principle to another? And that it is He Himself who gives both these transitory things and the kingdom of heaven, He confirms the doctrine more precisely by saying: "Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

^A Against those who were inclined to dissolve marriage, and who took the patronage of Moses for that purpose, the Savior, fighting excellently for the lawgiver, says: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so, but He who made them, made them male and female." He shows, therefore, that Moses wrote thus because he was moved by their contention, but that His own law accords with that first law of procreation; for the disjunction of marriage resulted from indulgence and Mosaic dispensation. But that you may understand more clearly who formed the bodies in such a way, He Himself, while mentioning Him who joined them, indicates by whom they were formed: "What therefore," He says, "God has joined, let not man separate." How then is the human body a figment of evil?

^B If it is not permitted to serve two masters, as the Lord Himself says, and man serves the good God with his soul, by whom it was created, but the evil one with his body, no one among men serves God integrally, and the Truth Itself will appear a liar when it pronounced those words: "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you." For that voice of the Savior will not be addressed to divided men, but to the whole, who are of one Lord, and are His servants alone, both in soul and in body, being His works and His sole worshipers.

^C If Christ was made man only in opinion, or if He took flesh from heaven, as these triflers claim, how, when He was eight days old, was He circumcised as the ancient law commanded? For this alone is enough to refute their trifles. For that which was cut away was flesh similar to our flesh. For, as the great Paul says, "Since the children have participated in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise participated in the same"; and, "Because He was called our brother, He ought to have been made like His brothers in all things." Since, therefore, it has been openly demonstrated that Christ truly assumed human flesh from pure and virginal blood, how, O most audacious one, can you say that this Lordly body is a work of the evil principle, like other bodies, or will you shrink from the weight of such impiety? For if you are not ashamed to adjudge even this to the evil principle, tell me: how will the evil be mingled with the good, and how could the good God have been able to procure the salvation of the world through an evil body; and how shall He sit on the throne with the Father?

^D

Concerning the Theotokos.

of Him in detail up to the arrival of the Magi, it says again, that "when they entered the house, they saw the child with Mary His mother, and fell down ^A and worshipped Him." And the great Luke, leading the account from higher up, says: "A decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was pregnant. And it happened that while they were there, the days were fulfilled for her to be delivered, and she gave birth to her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn."

There are also many other testimonies, both from the Gospel book and from the apostolic books—which you alone receive, while rejecting the others—by which it is established that the all-holy Virgin Mary gave birth according to the flesh to our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God. For our Savior Himself everywhere in the Gospel calls Himself the Son of Man, with regard for His true mother; and the divine Paul says: "God sent forth His Son, ^B born of a woman," to omit other things. But if, being hard-pressed by these testimonies, they imagine and fable that Christ brought down His body from above, we will answer them in this way: If the body of Christ were heavenly, it would not have been subject to human, yet blameless, passions—by which I mean hunger, and thirst, and sleep, and weariness, and sorrow, and tears, and all things of that kind. If He were a heavenly man, to whom the Word was joined in hypostasis, He would not have been corruptible and mortal, like earthly bodies. For things that are heavenly and living perceive neither corruption nor death. Furthermore, what was the need of being born from a Virgin, if He received nothing from her for the constitution of human nature? And to these things, why, when He had taught the apostles that He is the Son of Man because of His true mother and Theotokos, did He send them as heralds into the whole world, ^C crying out this very thing—that He became man, having been born of a Virgin? For according to those who hold the contrary doctrines, He is found to be not our Savior but an enemy, not a benefactor but a pestilence, having laid for us a false foundation of faith, namely, the incarnation from pure and virginal blood and the likeness to men. But may the Lord be merciful to us if we endure even to hear such great blasphemy, let alone speak it with our tongue, since the Savior Himself, confirming the faith to the apostles after the resurrection, so that they would not think He was a ghost, ^D but the very true God, who from the Virgin mother

had taken on flesh, said to them: *"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."* And by showing Thomas the marks of the nails and His side, He ^A provided a firmer testimony of the truth: for flesh and bones, and the piercings of the hands and feet, and the puncture of the side, are proper to a true body.

Why, you ask, do you say that Christ put on a heavenly, and not a human, flesh, even though the Apostle says: *"He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one. For which cause He is not ashamed,"* he says, *"to call them brethren, saying: I will declare thy name to my brethren"*? And from one, namely what? From Adam, clearly, according to the genealogy of Luke. And again: *"Since the children have participated in flesh and blood, He also in like manner partook of the same."* And to remove the suspicion of a heavenly flesh, he added: *"For nowhere does He take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham. Whence He ought to be made like His brethren in all things."* And many other things of this kind. ^B But the Lord, they say, said in the Gospel: *"No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven."* And the Apostle again: *"The first man from the earth is earthly; the second man is the Lord from heaven."* Behold, for in both places He is called a heavenly man. To them we respond that, since Christ is double in His natures, but singular in His hypostasis, He appropriates the things of either nature. And just as the Apostle, speaking about those who crucified Him, said: *"If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory,"* yet he did not mean that the divinity, which is the Lord of glory, had suffered, but the assumed humanity; so also, concerning these expressions, this Son and God is indeed said to have suffered on account of the one hypostasis of the divinity, which also became the hypostasis for the human nature, yet He is understood to have suffered according to His human nature; and to have descended from heaven, and to be in heaven, according to the hypostasis of the divinity; but to be the Son of man according to the nature which He assumed later, after the descent from heaven. And again, the same Lord, because of the one hypostasis, is called the second man; because of the assumed humanity, he is of heaven because of the divinity. For unless we understand each properly, we shall concede that the Apostle speaks with contradictions. For how is He like us in all things, we who consist of earth? Or how is He our brother, who is clothed in heavenly flesh? Innumerable other absurdities would follow.

7. That the Old Testament, and those who stood out in it, are of the good God.

If the ancient law is of the evil one, why did the founder of the new law, hearing the lawyer who pretended to be seeking eternal life, send him to that law, and...

[...the eternal life,* to reject [the inquirer] to that Law, and from thence to suggest that he seek what was being sought. And when the jurist had gone through the first two commandments for them word for word, the Truth [Christ] said that he had answered rightly, and that if he lived according to these, he would inherit the eternal life that he sought.

^A When the Savior was asked concerning the commandments of the Law, He says the first is: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one," and the rest. And when He found that he who asked Him was of the same mind, He said that he was not far from the kingdom of God. How, then, could the Mosaic laws, if they had been from the enemy, prescribe that one God and Lord be acknowledged, and that besides Him, no one else should be worshipped or adored? Where, then, are those who introduce an evil principle and attribute to it the Old Testament?

What will the accusers of the Old Law say, when they see through the Gospel that Christ was led to Jerusalem, and that He fulfilled the Mosaic ordinances, and offered sacrifice, according to what is written in the law of the Lord?

^B Again, the Savior, muzzling the vain chatter of those who swore oaths, says: "Fools and blind, what is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?" Therefore, the temple of the Old [Testament] was not only holy, but it also had the power to sanctify. And again: "What is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?" Clearly demonstrating here also that the altar was holy, and that it made holy the things offered upon it.

^C As for the mouth of Christ, Paul says: "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." How, then, is the law not from the true God, since it declares those who obey it to be righteous?

That the old law is divine, and given by the heavenly God, Paul, the herald of truth, proclaims with a clear voice, saying: "What then shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid." And again: "For I know that the law is spiritual," and "I consent to the law of God according to the inner man." And again: "So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin," and the rest. So the law, he says, is "holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." And it is clear that the holy is not one thing, the just another, and the good another, but it is the same commandment of the Law, and of the same God—both holy, and just, and good. For from Whom flows holiness, and justice, and goodness, He Himself is the dispenser and giver of these things; and as the Cause, since He is before all things, He bestows these upon others, while He Himself does not participate in them [by receiving them from another].

^D How are the things of the Old Testament holy, and the Holy of Holies, if they were from an evil legislation? For the same Apostle says: "The first tabernacle had indeed justifications of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." And the tabernacle

^A after the second veil, which is called the Holy of Holies. How then is it not holy, and the Holy of holies, in which was the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron which was laid up, and the tables of the testament? And how did the Cherubim of glory overshadow them, if these were the ordinances of a crafty and evil ruler?

The Savior calls the Mosaic ordinances the commandments of God, and everywhere honors such a legislation: God, He says, commanded: "Honor thy father and thy mother"; and, "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." But you have made void the commandment of God by your tradition. And having said this, He brings forward Isaiah as a witness, saying: "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you, saying: This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments ^B of men." Behold how clearly the natural Son of God calls the Old Testament the commandments of God, and calls the prophet Isaiah His prophet. Where then are those who attribute the Old Testament to the evil one, and who say that the prophets of the Old Testament are the prophets of that same being?

And again, in other places, He confirms and enjoins peace and justice among men: Wherefore, He says, "All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them." This commandment of His He seals with the dignity of the law and the prophets. "For so," He says, "is the law and the prophets."

Zacharias, being filled with the Holy Spirit, calls the saints who were from the beginning the choir of the holy prophets: "And hath raised up a horn of salvation to us, in the house of David his servant," he says, "As he spoke by the mouth of his holy ^C prophets, who are from the beginning," his prophets, not the enemy's. And what did they prophesy? "That God would be mindful of his holy testament," not of the enemy's testament. And that he might the more restrain the mouths of the impious, he added: "The oath, which he swore to Abraham our father, that he would grant to us, that being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him without fear, in holiness and justice."

Collate what has been said. Zacharias is filled with the Holy Spirit. Being filled, he proclaims from thence the prophets from the beginning as holy, and calls the Mosaic Testament holy, and foretells our freedom, and proclaims Him who swore to Abraham to be the bestower of freedom, and says that those who approach to worship Him, worship in holiness and justice. If Zacharias recounted these things, being filled ^D with the Holy Spirit, are not those who think the opposite found to be filled with an evil spirit?

^A If the ancient legislation were of the evil one, and those who shone within it were also his, how does Luke the Evangelist testify that Zacharias and Elisabeth, living under the ancient legislation, were righteous before God—not before men—and walked in all the commandments and ordinances of God blamelessly? And further, that Zacharias performed his priesthood before God, and that he calls the legal temple, into which he entered, the temple of God; and that in it the angel of the Lord appeared, that chief commander Gabriel? For from these things, and many others which follow, both the Old Testament and those who behaved themselves rightly within it are clearly proclaimed as belonging to the good God.

If the ancient legislation is of the evil one, why did He who came to destroy the evil one deign to take its book, that is, the book of Isaiah the prophet, ^B and read it to the hearing of many, in which things concerning Himself were foretold? And not only to read, but also to testify that "These things are now fulfilled in your ears," and to proclaim the year, which is a circuit of times—and time is the measure of sensible motion—as "acceptable to the Lord"? And again, in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, how does our good Master call Moses and the prophets teachers of salutary conversion and repentance? For He says, "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." Would He who took upon Himself our nature for the common salvation of the human race have sent those who were being instructed by Him and recalled from error ^C to the ministers and servants of the enemy, in order for them to attain salvation? And who could endure the extremity of such madness?

If the lawgiver of the Old Testament is the wicked one, how does the Fountain of goodness say, "Search the Scriptures, for in them you will find eternal life"? By Scriptures, He means those of Moses and the other prophets. For the books of the new grace did not yet exist. For where is the eternal life in things where the wicked one legislates and commands? And how does the Truth say in other places, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me"? He did not say, "If you believed Moses in some things," ^D but simply manifested him as worthy of belief.

If the Old Testament were of an evil origin, how does the great Paul, beginning his Epistle to the Romans, say that God promised beforehand through His prophets in holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh? For if there are prophets of God, and holy Scriptures through which God promised beforehand concerning His Son, how could the Old Testament be considered to be of the wicked one? And Mark also says, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets." And in many places of the four Gospels it is written what: "That it might be fulfilled..."

which was spoken by this or that prophet."

If the righteousness of God is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, as the Apostle Paul says, how can it be thought that the law and ^A the prophets do not proceed from the very inspiration and truth of the good God?

If the Old Testament were of an evil principle, how does our Savior Christ, who joins grace to the law, say: "Many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which you see, and did not see them"? For why would those who were from the evil one desire to see the things which are of the good? For the desire for the good is born from a good impulse. And how, again, did He say: "Abraham saw My day, and was glad"? For if the mystery concerning Christ, as Paul says, was hidden from the principalities, and powers, and dominions, and their ruler, how did the servants of that ruler foresee ^B His day, and rejoice?

The Savior threatened the workers of iniquity with the most grievous punishments on the day of judgment, saying: "When you see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves are cast out; and they shall come from the east, and the west, and the north, and the south, and shall recline in the kingdom of God." Therefore, all who have not ordered their lives in imitation of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, shall be cast out. But those who were zealous for their piety shall recline with them. How, then, could robbers and thieves and servants of the evil one be those who enjoy the ^C kingdom of God? O shameless mouths, readily serving the father of lies, who do not even shrink from the burning, by which, while they rejoice with Abraham, they shall be separated from those who are punished in the furnaces!

Elsewhere, again, the Savior assigns the kingdom of heaven as an inheritance to those who shall be with Abraham, and places the observers of His own commandments with them: "Many," He says, "shall come from the east and the west, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." Is this, then, the reward for those who have known Him, and have suffered ten thousand things for His sake? Does He bestow this gift—that those who have exposed themselves ^D to numberless hardships and death for His sake should live, and be numbered, and gathered together with the servants of the evil one, if indeed those who were in the Old Testament were his servants? Who, being accustomed to hear divine words, could bear to hear these things? Furthermore, how were Moses and Elias seen present with Him at the Transfiguration, and were talking with Him and shining?

The Savior, rebuking the foolishness of the Sadducees, who questioned Him about the woman who had been the wife of the seven brothers, as to whose she would be, and at the same time

^A teaching the consensus of the Law and of grace: "Have you not read," He says, "what was said by God: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," and what follows? By these words He clearly declares that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are heirs of eternal life, and that God is eternal, and the cause of the resurrection, and the donor of the joy that follows therefrom. For He added that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And Mark also adds that God said these things in the book of Moses. If He is not the God of the dead, but Abraham lives with Him, and Isaac lives, and Jacob lives, and all who have emulated their manner of life, and they are as the angels of God in heaven; and Moses is the servant of God, and the minister of the Law given by God: how, then, are those who lived according to the Old Covenant from an evil source?

If the prophet David was of an evil lot, how did Christ say ^B that he was inspired by the Spirit, for he says, "David says in the Holy Spirit: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand," and what follows?

That the Lawgiver of the Old and New Testaments is one, and that they are in harmony with each other, and not contrary, as the enemies of God maintain.

"Do not think," says the Savior, "that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill." And: "Amen, amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot will pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." I, He says, have come as the fulfiller of the Law. It is the work of wicked tongues to say that I have come to destroy the Law ^C which is the Father's, and, to say the same, is mine. Therefore, I will leave nothing of it unfulfilled. I am the confirmation of the prophetic voices. For since those who are mine and my Father's servants and ministers foresaw and announced both my coming and all the things pertaining to it, for this reason nothing of what they foretold and what the Law contains, neither small nor great, will pass away until it is sealed by the end of truth. For if I am a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises which the Father made to the Fathers according to the flesh, how could one iota, that is, the smallest of the things said in the Law and the prophets, possibly pass away or not come to pass?

See also from other testimonies the equality of the Law and of grace, so that you may know that He is the ^D Lawgiver of the Old and New Testaments. "Amen, amen I say to you, heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." This belongs to grace. Now see also the testimony of the Law: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to fall." Do you see how our Savior, foreseeing the boldness of the apostasy of these men, attributes equal gifts and glory to both the Old and New Testaments, even though in many respects the Law far precedes grace, inasmuch as it performs the office of a pedagogue, schooling us for the things that belong to grace; but

^A in order to show that it was He Himself who legislated both those former things and the present ones according to a varied and ineffable plan of economy, He used the same and equal expressions regarding both legislations. And indeed, against those who would not obey the saving teachings offered by them, He introduces none other as accuser and triumphator than Moses, saying: "There is one who accuses you, Moses" (John v, 45), understood to be before the Father, whose laws, being himself entrusted with them, and the prophecy concerning Christ, he would be a credible accuser and an irrefutable witness against those who boast of the laws themselves and claim to honor and love them, while receiving nothing of what was predicted by him concerning our common Lord and Savior, which was the head, the foundation, and the prologue of his entire legislation.

Combining the new with the old, the Lord ^B shows that they lead to the same path of salvation, inasmuch as they have proceeded from one and the same author, and that the old lead toward perfection, while the new bestow perfection. Therefore He says: "Every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old" (Matt. xiii, 52). By the fact that they are in the same treasury, and that the New and Old Testament proceed from the same place, He confirms that they agree and harmonize with each other, and do not disagree. Moreover, by showing that the teaching of both leads to the kingdom of heaven, He signifies even more clearly that their harmony is excessive and indivisible. If, therefore, each Testament is stored in the same treasury, and proceeds again from the same source, and leads those who follow them to the same kingdom of heaven, how do their adversaries pull them into opposing parts?

If the Mosaic and prophetic writings did not proceed ^C from the Divine Spirit, why does the Savior, after the resurrection, take from them the rebuke for Cleopas and the other disciple, saying: "O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke xxiv, 25-27). Our Redeemer recounts the prophets as indicators of the works by which He liberated us from the tyranny of the evil one, and do you dare to call them ministers of tyranny? From this place, therefore, it is established that the Law and the prophets agree with grace.

Since the Law agrees with grace, for this reason they mutually confirm one another. For grace is foretold, prefigured, and expressed, and is overshadowed by the Law. The Law, however, looks upon the truth in those things that were predicted and foretold, and that are brought to fulfillment through grace, which was hidden in itself under veils, but ^D made manifest by grace itself. If, however, there were no harmony between grace and the things that were before grace, how would we see what was predicted by the Law and the prophets brought to perfection in reality? Why does our Savior send the lepers cleansed by Him to the legal sa-

^A priests according to the Law, commanding them to go and show themselves to them, and, what is more significant, offer the gift, as Moses commanded?

The divine Paul, bringing forward the prophetic predictions as testimony, says: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will accomplish a new testament for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made for their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hands to lead them out of Egypt." "Which I made," he says, but not the evil one, as you claim. Then: "They did not remain in my testament, and I neglected them." Who is the speaker? The Lord, he says, not the evil one. For He adds: "This is the testament which I will establish for the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord." I will establish it, not someone else. I will establish the New, I who also established the Old. Do you see how, above and below, Paul praises the same one as the Lawgiver of both the Old and the New Testament?

^B Do not pass over in silence the unoffered and wonderful sacrifice of Abraham, which God sought and whose intent He accepted; the man, however, willingly obeyed, and not only obeyed, but believed that God is able even to raise the dead. Therefore it is reckoned to him as righteousness. And the paternal dignity he receives not only for that generation, but also for those that came after, as it is written: "Because I have appointed you a father of many nations, before the God in whom he believed." And observe precisely of which God he speaks. For Paul adds, teaching that He is "who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist." And again: "But he did not waver in the promise of God by unbelief, but was strengthened by faith, giving glory to God." Do you see who it is that spoke in the Law and the prophets? For it is no one else than He who granted us grace. For he adds: "But it was not written for his sake alone, but also for our sake, to whom it will be reckoned if we believe in Him who raised our ^C Lord Jesus Christ from the dead." Therefore, He who appointed Abraham the father of many nations, He who gave him the oath, He who is unerring in His promises, He who calls things that are not as though they were, He who gives life to the dead, is the same who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, even if the deadly opinion of the apostates divides the one and indivisible Principle into two principles.

Paul, proclaiming that the Old and the New are of one God, and that the latter proceeded from the root of the former, and that each partakes of holiness, says: "But if the first fruits are holy, so also is the lump. And if the root is holy, so also are the branches. And you do not support the root, but the root you." And, "If God did not spare the natural branches" (for the feet of those who tempted in the wilderness fell, and many other disasters beset the wicked). ^D

^A perhaps He will not spare you either. It is not one for them and another for you, but the same One. And again: "Behold the goodness and the severity." Of whom? Of Christ: severity, indeed, toward those who fell, but toward you goodness. What then is meant by the firstfruits, the lump, the root, the branches, the natural ones, and those grafted in, if not to declare by the clearest of voices a certain mutual relationship, kinship, and that they belong to the same Legislator?

Elsewhere, again, He says: "Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God"—clearly of one, and not of two gods. Of the commandments, one ordered circumcision, the other forbade it; both of which he acknowledges as coming from the same God. So that there is one true God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who both gave circumcision through Abraham for the perfecting of the mystery in appointed times, and has received those who were in uncircumcision through His Son.

Observe with me the wisdom of Paul, how he introduces the difference between the New and the Old Testament. But when he perceived the heresy of those deserters, cutting off all their idle talk, he immediately adds: "Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." All things, he says—meaning both the New and the Old Testament—are from God, who has reconciled us to Himself through our Lord Jesus Christ. ^B

John, having become worthy of the advent of the good God, and being "more than a prophet," and "greater than those born of women," as testified by the Truth Itself, how could he endure to fight for the mandate of the Law, especially when he had been sent as the precursor of grace? And he did not merely fight, but was even condemned to be beheaded for its sake. For from where, if not from the Law, did he take the authority to rebuke Herod and to say: "It is not lawful for you to have your brother Philip's wife"? You see, therefore, how much he valued the commandments of the Law, he who was deemed worthy to baptize the Author of grace! For if the Mosaic precepts and the evangelical ordinances were not of the same divine and good inspiration, how could he, the minister of grace, not despise them? Especially when the Lord says: "No one can serve two masters," and what follows. For the precursor John himself, along with the assembly of the prophets, is found to be serving two masters, if we were to grant that the New and Old Testament belong to two masters, one good and one evil. ^C

Paul, that great herald of the truth, cries out with a clear voice: "Do I say these things according to man? Or does not the Law also say the same?" That is to say, I do not confirm this with human arguments; is it not also prescribed by the mandate of the Law? "For in the Law of Moses," he says, "it is written: You shall not muzzle an ox ^D

^A treading out the corn." And after saying these things, he adds: "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" And he indicates for whose sake he is concerned, adding: "For our sake, surely, he says it, and for our sake it was written." Thus, the dogma is common, both walking through the Old Testament and lived out in Grace. Then, by the sameness of what was legislated, he indicates the natural and most certain likeness of the Son to the Father, saying: "Just as, he says, it was commanded that those who serve the altar should be partakers of the altar, so also the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the Gospel should live from the Gospel." And again, explaining more clearly the connection and relationship of the Law and of Grace, he says: "I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the pursuing spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ." You hear how Christ gave drink to the people of the Fathers—that is to say, his own people—and how the Father led Israel to the recognition and worship of the Son? And through whom? By Moses, surely, and the prophets. Where, then, is this evil one here? Where is the work of an evil principle? Where are the laws of the opposing faction? Then again he says: "And let us not test ^B Christ, as some of them tested him." Which ones? The Israelite people, clearly. And what were the wages? They perished by the serpents. Thus, those who tested the God in the Law were, through the Father, testing the Son.

Paul, writing to the Hebrews, says:

Again, the same Apostle says: "Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who was faithful to Him who made him," ^C that is to say, made him high priest. Then, explaining how he was faithful, he demonstrates it through Moses: "As also Moses," he says, "was faithful in all his house." In whose house? Clearly, in that of Him who made our Lord Jesus Christ high priest. Then, teaching also the incomparable difference of the Master from the servant, he added: "For he has been accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, to the extent that the one who has built it has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God." Behold, for Christ is the Son of the good Father; ^D but Moses is His servant, and not simply a servant, but faith-

faithful. And again: "He who built all things is God, who also ordained the construction of His earthly house."

This same teacher of the world says that Aaron was called by God to be a high priest, just as Christ was. "No one," he says, "takes the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was." So too, Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but He who spoke to Him: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." But if He who called Christ high priest is the same One who anointed Aaron through Moses, and neither declared himself a high priest, but both were called by Him, how then are the works and laws of the Old and New Testaments not of one and the same good God?

^B You, for your part, gather for me the others who were clearly shown to have lived according to the old dispensation: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses himself, whom Paul places with praise among the number of the righteous, and celebrates their faith. For regarding Moses, he indeed adds that he endured the reproach of Christ. "For he considered," to use his own words, "the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of Egypt." And he adds the reason: "For he was looking to the reward," which God was clearly able to grant him.

And what need is there, says the heavenly inhabitant Paul, anticipating the task, to enumerate these men? "For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak and Samson, and Jephthah, David and Samuel, and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong." Then, having recounted their sacred and wondrous deeds, and the life and fortitude spent in the solitude of the wilderness, he adds: ^C "Of whom the world was not worthy." And not content with this, but inciting us to their imitation and exhorting us to virtue by their example, he further adds: "Therefore, having such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto the author and finisher of our faith, Jesus," who is our Lord Jesus Christ, who also became the author of that faith in which our fathers remained strenuous and stable, and the finisher of both their and our salvation.

This Apostle also praises the Mosaic law elsewhere as God’s word that does not fall away, saying: "For the word of God has not fallen away." And concerning Jacob and Esau, he makes a statement that "the greater shall serve the lesser," by which he rebukes both the recent and the ancient ministers of error. ^D For he says: "Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'"

'" And so that no one should think that he brings the entire work of his accomplishments to fulfillment by his own labors and exertions, and without the cooperation from above, he adds: "Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." He declares this same God to be the fountain of mercy for those who look to Him, and one who refutes and casts down the arrogant and hardened among those who are exalted against Him. And he praises this same God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as benevolent and good, and says that all must obey Him, and no one may withdraw himself from His inscrutable governance through his own personal reasoning. Thus he adds: "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?" Then, clearly proclaiming Him to be the Creator—and not only the Creator, but also an autonomous God and Judge who distributes to each what His judgment brought forth—as Master, he teaches that He bears with the vessels fitted for destruction, while He lavishly bestows the riches of His glory upon those worthy of His mercy. He announces that we are also participants in this, since we have been prepared and called to enjoy His goods, having believed in our Lord Jesus Christ. ^B

In other places, however, writing that the grace of the true God is irrevocable, and that the Israelite people, and the law, and the commandments were His, and that He did not cast away all because of the transgression of a few, so that they would not be His children, he says: "Has God cast away His people? Certainly not! God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew." And showing clearly which God he means, and where it is evident that He did not cast away His people, he says: "For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." So He who did not cast away Paul, but called him to election, is the same who also made Israel His own people, and did not reject them, but perfected them through faith in Christ. ^C

Revealing the radiance of the truth, the divine Apostle, exhorting us to be pure and separated from the unclean, as those who have been enrolled as sons and daughters of God—"And you shall be to Me in sons and daughters," he says—adds also Him who promised these things, that He is the Lord Almighty. He also weaves together to whom these promises were made—that it is to us through the fathers. For he adds: "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Therefore, these things promised to us had their beginning from the fathers, and whose people that was, of that same God are we also; and just as in the Old Testament the pure were the temple of God, so also in the New, the pure are the temple of the same God. ^D

Truly, those who are adepts and leaders of such a heresy prattle on with many other things that are neither bearable to the ears of the faithful nor speakable by the tongue of the pious. For since faith...

had its beginning in error, they have consequently gone astray in all things. Nevertheless, we shall demonstrate the heads of their heretical opinions, and their foundations, and their roots, and the source, as it were, which the pious Word has already refuted up to the present time, tearing them asunder like a spider's web; and having scattered their darkness, it has shown forth the truth. As for the rest, they have been passed over, since they can easily be dissolved by the same arguments by which we have overturned the others. For if those who are infected with the poison of heresy repent, they will learn the rest from the refutation of the more serious heads of doctrine. For when led into the straight path, they will easily be walking toward all truth, treating every falsehood as a stumbling block and an obstacle and casting it out from their midst; but if they continue to blink and close their eyes to the light, and stiffen themselves against it while protected by lies, and refuse to depart from the spirit that deceived them, then again the inquiry into the details will be superfluous. For one who builds upon rotten foundations will be laboring in vain, and will have undertaken a useless task. ^A

TITLE XXV. On the cross, on holy baptism, and on the mystery of the eucharist.

^B Since, however, the Paulicians despise the precious cross, and loathe divine baptism, and mock the sacred participation of the mystical supper, we shall also bring forward some things concerning these matters, taken from the works composed by the blessed Fathers.

Of the Damascene on the cross.

The very creation of things cannot be comprehended by human reasoning. Faith is altogether necessary. What faith is. "The word of the cross is folly indeed to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:23). "For the spiritual man judges all things, but the animal man does not perceive the things that are of God" (1 Cor. 2:15). For it is folly to those who do not accept all things, and do not consider the goodness and omnipotence of God, but search out divine things with human ^C and natural reasonings. For the things of God transcend nature, and the Word, and thought. For if anyone ponders in his mind how, and why, God brought all things out of nothing, and contends to attain this by natural reasoning, he will by no means comprehend it. For such knowledge is animal and devilish. But he who is led by faith, as if by the hand, and thinks of God as good, and omnipotent, and true, and wise, and just, will find all things smooth and even, and will find the straight path. For it is impossible for anyone to obtain salvation without faith (Heb. 11:6). For by faith both all human and all spiritual things ^D consist. For neither does the farmer, without faith, plow his field, nor does the merchant willingly entrust his soul to the raging waves of the sea, carried on a small piece of wood, nor are marriages contracted, nor, in short, is anything else of those things which life brings forth undertaken.

^A By faith we accomplish human things. Faith is an assent free from all curious investigation.

^B Now, every action and miracle of Christ is most great, and divine, and wonderful; but the most wonderful of all is His precious Cross. For by no other thing has death been rendered inactive, the sin of the forefather been dissolved, Hades been despoiled, the resurrection been granted, the power to despise present things and death itself been given to us, the return to ancient blessedness been accomplished, the gates of paradise been opened, our nature been seated at the right hand of God, and we have become children of God and heirs, except through the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. For by the Cross all things have been accomplished. For "as many of us as have been baptized into Christ," says the Apostle, "have been baptized into His death." And "as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." But Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Behold, the death of Christ, that is to say, the Cross, has clothed us with the subsistent wisdom and power of God. The power of God is called the word of the Cross, ^C either because the power and might of God, that is, the victory against death, has been made manifest to us through it; or because, just as the four extremities of the Cross are held and bound together through the central point, so through the power of God are the height and depth, length and breadth—that is, the whole visible and invisible creation—held together.

This ^D is given to us as a sign upon the forehead, in the same way as circumcision was to Israel; for by it we believers are distinguished from non-believers and are recognized. This is a shield and an armor and a trophy against the devil. This is a seal, that "the destroyer" may not touch us, as the Scripture says. This is the raising up of those who lie down, the prop of those who stand, the staff of the infirm, the rod of those who are shepherded, the guidance of those who turn back, the perfection of those who progress, the salvation of soul and body, the averter of all evils, the procurer of all good things, the wiping away of sin, the plant of the resurrection, the tree of eternal life.

On the adoration of the precious wood of the Cross, and of other things which Christ sanctified by His touch

Therefore, this precious and truly venerable wood, in which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us, inasmuch as it was sanctified by the touch of His holy body and blood, ought rightly to be adored; as also the nails, the lance, the garments, and his sacred dwelling-places—which are the manger, the cave, Golgotha, the saving and life-giving tomb, Zion the citadel of the Churches, and the like; as the God-bearing David said: "We will enter into His tabernacles; we will worship in the place where His feet have stood." That he speaks here of the Cross, the following passage makes clear: "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest." For the resurrection follows the Cross.

^A For if the house, the bed, and the garment of those whom we love are dear to us, how much more are those things which belong to God and our Savior, through which salvation has been wrought for us!

That the figure of the Cross is to be adored as the sign of Christ. That the material of the Cross is not to be adored.

The Tree of Life is a figure of the Cross.

On holy Baptism: from the thirty chapters of the great Basil to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium.

pause intercepts the contrary movements, so also in the change of life it appeared necessary that death should mediate between both lives, terminating those that lead up to it and giving a beginning to those that follow. How, therefore, do we achieve this descent into Hades, imitating the burial of Christ? For the bodies of those who are being baptized are, as it were, buried in the water. Baptism, therefore, symbolically manifests the putting off of the works of the flesh, according to the Apostle saying that ^B "You were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism"*. And it is, as it were, a purgation for the soul from the filth which accrues to it from the wisdom of the flesh, according to what is written: "You shall wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow"*. For this reason, we are not washed after the manner of the Jews for every individual defilement, but we know of one saving baptism, since there is one death for the world and one resurrection from the dead, of which baptism is the figure. For the sake of this, the Lord who governs our life established for us the covenant of baptism, containing the figure of death and life, the water fulfilling the image of death, and the Spirit providing the pledge of life. So it has become clear to us from this what was sought: why water was taken along with the Spirit. Because, two purposes being proposed in baptism, to destroy the body of sin so that it may no longer bear fruit unto death, and to live unto the Spirit and to have fruit in holiness, the water provides the image of death, as if receiving the body in a sepulcher; but the Spirit imparts the life-giving power, renewing our souls from the deadness that comes from sin unto the life that was from the beginning. This, therefore, is to be born from above of water and the Spirit, as the deadening is accomplished in the water, but our life is worked ^C through the Spirit. Therefore, in three immersions and with an equal number of invocations, the great mystery of baptism is perfected, so that the figure of death might be depicted, and we who are being baptized might have our souls enlightened by the transmission of the knowledge of God. So if there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of the water, but from the presence of the Spirit.

From the Oration of Gregory the Theologian on the exhortation to baptism

Since we are twofold, meaning composed of soul and body, and of the visible and the invisible nature, the purification is also twofold, I say: by water and the Spirit—the one received theoretically and bodily, the other concurring incorporeally and invisibly; and the one typological, the other true, and that which purges the depths, ^D of which the first birth...

* Coloss. II, 12. * Psal. L, 9.

^A is the helper, fashioning new things from the old, and divine from that which we are, recreating without fire and refashioning without breaking. For, to grasp the matter briefly, the power of baptism is nothing other than a covenant of a second life and of a purer way of living, which we enter into with God, which we must fear above all things, and everyone must guard his own soul with all diligence, lest we be found liars regarding this confession. For if God, being taken as an intermediary, holds firm and confirms the agreements that we make with men, how great is the peril if we violate those covenants which we have made with God Himself, and are found to be breakers of them, being liable before the Truth not only for other sins, but for this lie itself? And this, too, when there is no second regeneration, nor recreation, nor restoration to the former state, even if we seek it with many laments and ^B tears—from which, as I myself feel and judge, the covering of a scar follows with difficulty. It follows, and we believe it. But if the scars are wiped away, it is well with us, since even I myself am in need of humanity.

Gregory of Nyssa, Pontiff, from his Catechetical Oration, on Baptism.

But since the institution of the laver is also a part of the mystical teachings—whether one might wish to call it baptism, or illumination, or regeneration, there will be no difference between us regarding the name—it would be worth the effort to go through a few points concerning this. For when they hear from us that, because that which is mortal passes over to life, it was ^C fitting that, whereas the first generation leads to a mortal life, another generation should be found which neither begins from corruption, nor ends in destruction, but leads the one born into immortal life—so that just as from a mortal generation that which is born necessarily turns out to be mortal, so that which is born from a generation that does not experience destruction might be superior to the destruction suffered from death—when they have understood these things and the like, and have learned the manner, namely that prayer to God, and the invocation of heavenly grace, and water, and faith are that by which the mystery of regeneration is accomplished, they are not easily brought to believe: for they look at what is seen, and do not think that what is performed by bodily means corresponds to the promise. For how, they say, can it be that prayer and the invocation ^D of divine power, occurring over the water, becomes the source of life for those who are initiated? To whom, if they are not being altogether obstinate, a simple answer will suffice for the approval of this institution. For we, in turn, ask how generation in the flesh takes place. For although it is manifest to all that that which is cast in for the sake of forming the living creature becomes a human being, yet no reasoning can be brought forward by which it could be convincingly persuaded how this is brought about. For what common ground does the definition of man have if it is compared with that quality which is seen? For man is a rational and cognitive being, but that other thing is considered in a certain humid quality. And reason apprehends nothing more than what is perceived by the senses. What, therefore, is consistent

^A with the answer they are likely to give us, when we ask how it is credible that a man should be formed from that element, is the same answer we give when questioned regarding the regeneration that takes place through water and the Spirit. For there, it is ready for each of those questioned to say that the thing becomes a man by divine power, in the absence of which that thing is immovable and inactive. If, therefore, in that case, the underlying matter does not make the man, but divine power transforms the visible appearance to the nature of man, would it not be the height of ignorance to acknowledge such great power of God in that matter, yet to think the Divine is so feeble in this regard as to be unable to fulfill His will? "What, strictly speaking," they say, "does water have in common with life?" And we might say to them, "What does humidity have in common with the image of God?" But there is nothing paradoxical in that, if, by the will of God, humidity transitions to the most precious animal. We say the same regarding this: it is not at all astonishing if the presence of divine power transforms that which is born in a corruptible nature unto incorruption. But they seek proof that the Divine ^B is present when invoked for the sanctification of what is taking place. The establishment of the fact that the power which appeared to us through the flesh is truly divine serves as the argument for the present discourse. For once it has been demonstrated that the One manifested in the flesh is God, and that He revealed His nature through the miracles He performed, it has simultaneously been demonstrated that He is present to those things which are done whenever He is invoked. For just as every one of existing things has a certain property ^C that characterizes its nature, so truth is proper to the divine nature. But indeed, He has promised that He will always be present to those who call upon Him, and that He will be in the midst of those who believe, and will remain in all, and will be with each one. We therefore do not require any other proof for the presence of the Divine in the things that are done, since we believe Him to be God through His miracles, and knowing that it is proper to the Godhead to have nothing in common with falsehood, we do not doubt that the promised One is present in the truth of His promise.

Of Damascene, further concerning baptism.

We confess one baptism unto the remission of sins and unto life eternal. For baptism signifies the death of the Lord. We are buried, therefore, with the Lord through baptism, as the divine Apostle says. Just as then the death of the Lord was accomplished once, so also must we be baptized once; and we must be baptized according to the Word of the Lord, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, being taught the confession into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Those, therefore, who have been baptized into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having been taught the one nature of the Godhead in three persons, if they are baptized again, these crucify Christ anew, as the divine Apostle says. For it is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, and so forth, to be renewed again unto repentance, crucifying for themselves the

^A Son of God and putting him to an open shame. But as for those who have not been baptized into the Holy Trinity, they must be baptized again. For even if the divine Apostle says that "we have been baptized into Christ and into his death," he does not mean that the invocation of baptism must consist of these words, but rather that baptism is a figure of the death of Christ. For by the three immersions, baptism signifies the three days during which the Lord lay buried in the tomb. Therefore, to be baptized into Christ signifies nothing other than to be washed in the saving water by believing in him. Now it is impossible to believe in Christ without having been instructed in the confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For Christ is the Son of the living God, whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit, as the divine David says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions." And Isaiah also, speaking from the person of the Lord: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." The Lord, however, taught his own disciples the form of words to be used, saying: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." ^B For since God created us for the attainment of immortality, but when his commandment was violated, he punished us with the stain of death—so that evil might not be immortal—he leaned down to his servants out of his indulgence, and becoming like us, he redeemed us from corruption by his own passion; he poured out for us from his holy and immaculate side a fountain of forgiveness: water, indeed, for regeneration and the washing away of sin and corruption; but blood, as a drink that would procure eternal life. He also commanded us to be regenerated through water and the Spirit, with the Holy Spirit coming upon the water through the word and invocation. Since man consists of a double nature, of soul and body, he gave us a double purification, through water and the Spirit: namely, that the Spirit might restore in us the splendor of the divine image and likeness, while the water, through the grace of the Spirit, might cleanse the body from sin and render it free from corruption—the water indeed expressing the image of death, while the Spirit grants the pledge and guarantee of life. ^C Per The cleansing power of water. For from the beginning the Spirit of God was moving over the waters; and Scripture long ago bore witness to the water as having the power of cleansing. In the time of Noah, God washed away the sin of the world through water. Under the law, anyone who was unclean was cleansed by water, and this to such an extent that even a person’s garments had to be washed in water. Elias showed that the grace of the Spirit was mingled with the waters when he burned the holocaust with the water he had applied. And almost everything under the law is purified by water; for visible things are symbols of intelligible ones. ^D However, regeneration [is brought about according to the soul; for faith knows how to adopt as children, even though we are creatures through the Word...]

Spirit, and to lead us to our ancient blessedness.

Now, the forgiveness of sins is given to all alike through baptism; but the grace of the Spirit is given according to the measure of faith and of prior purification. For the present, through baptism we receive the first-fruits of the Holy Spirit, and regeneration becomes for us the beginning of another life, and a seal, and a preservative, and an illumination.

It is necessary to strive with all our might to keep ourselves safely clean from defiled works, lest, by returning like a dog to its own vomit, ^B we again make ourselves slaves of sin. For faith without works is dead, and likewise works without faith. For true faith is proven through works.

We are baptized into the Holy Trinity, because the things being baptized have need of the Holy Trinity for their very constitution and preservation, and it is impossible for the three persons not to be present with one another; for the Holy Trinity is inseparable.

The first baptism was the flood, for the cutting off of sin. The second was that through the sea and the cloud; for they were symbols, the cloud of the Spirit, and the sea of the water. The third was the legal one; for every unclean person was washed with water, ^C washed his garments, and thus entered the camp. The fourth was that of John, which was introductory, and led those being baptized to repentance, that they might believe in Christ. "I indeed," he says, "baptize you with water; but He who is coming after me, He," he says, "will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." John, therefore, purifies beforehand for the Spirit through the water. The fifth is the baptism of the Lord, with which He himself was baptized. He was baptized, not as though He himself had need of purification, but by taking upon himself my purification, ^D that He might crush the heads of the dragons upon the waters, that He might wash away sin, and bury the whole old Adam in the water, that He might sanctify the baptizer, that He might fulfill the law, that He might reveal the mystery of the Trinity, that He might become a pattern and example for us in being baptized. And we, too, are baptized with the perfect baptism of the Lord, that is, through water and the Spirit. And Christ is said to baptize with fire; for in the form of fiery tongues He poured out the grace of the Spirit upon the holy apostles, as the Lord himself said, "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit and with fire, not many days from now," or because of the purgative baptism of the fire to come. The sixth is that through repentance and

^A tears; it is truly painful. The seventh is that which is accomplished through the shedding of blood and martyrdom, ^D by which Christ himself also died for our sake. It is something extremely noble and blessed, because it is no longer defiled by any filth thereafter. The eighth, finally, is the last one, not salvific in nature, but rather one that destroys evil—for evil and sin no longer exist there—yet it punishes eternally.

*The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove and of fire.* Furthermore, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Lord in a bodily form, like a dove, both pointing to the first fruits of our baptism and honoring the body; for this, that is to say the body, was God through deification. And at the same time, the dove is accustomed in a way to announce the cessation of the flood. But in the form of fire, he descends upon the holy apostles, because he is God; for God is a consuming fire.

*The anointing with oil.* But oil is indeed used in baptism, signifying our anointing and making us christs, and furthermore promising us the mercy of God through the Holy Spirit; for the dove also ^B once brought an olive branch, beyond all hope, to those who had escaped safe and sound from the flood.

*John's baptism.* John was baptized by laying his hand upon the divine head of the Master, and with his own blood.

*Otherwise*, one ought not to delay baptism when the faith of those approaching is confirmed by their deeds. For whoever approaches baptism deceitfully will be condemned rather than benefited.

*Virtue of faith.* He is an infidel who does not believe the tradition of the Church, or who lives wickedly. Now, faith is twofold. For it says, "Faith comes from hearing." As we listen to the divine Scriptures, we believe in the teaching of the Holy Spirit. And this [faith] is perfected by all that has been ordained by Christ, by believing in deed, being pious, and keeping the commandments of Him who has restored us. For he who does not believe in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church, or who communicates with the devil through shameful deeds, is an ^C infidel.

*Faith as a gift of the Spirit.* Again: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," or it is an undoubting and unambiguous hope by which we are confident that the things promised to us by God, and the things we ask for, will be obtained. Now the former is of our own will; the latter is to be counted among the gifts of the Spirit.

*Spiritual circumcision.* We must know, moreover, that through baptism we are circumcised of all the covering we contracted from birth, namely sin, and we become spiritual Israelites and the people of God.

On the Transmutation of the Lord’s Body and Blood, from the Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa.

^A Just as those who have been poisoned by treachery extinguish the destructive power with another drug, and it is necessary that, in accordance with the likeness of the lethal substance, a salutary medicine should also be allowed into the human viscera so that its healing power may be distributed throughout the whole body; in the same way, having tasted of that which dissolves our nature, it was again necessary that we should be in need of that which brings the dissolved parts back together, so that when this salutary medicine has entered into us, it may, through its own opposite property, repel the damage of the poison that had been introduced into the body. What then is this? It is nothing other than that Body which was shown to be more powerful than death and which became the beginning of our life. For just as a little leaven, as the Apostle says, ^B makes the whole lump of dough similar to itself, so the Body which was made divine by God, once it has entered into ours, transforms and changes the whole into itself. For just as, when a destructive substance is mixed with a healthy one, everything that has been mixed together is rendered useless, so also the immortal Body, once it has entered into the one who receives it, transforms everything also into its own nature. But this cannot happen otherwise within the body unless it is mixed with the organs by eating and drinking. It is therefore necessary, in the way that nature is able, to receive the life-giving power of the Spirit. But since only that Body which received God has received this grace, and it has been shown that it is impossible for our body ^C to exist in immortality otherwise than by becoming a participant in incorruption through communion with the Immortal, it is necessary to consider how it was possible for that one Body, which is always being distributed to so many thousands of the faithful throughout the whole world, to be whole in each person through a portion, and yet remain whole in itself. Therefore, so that faith, looking toward what follows, may have no doubt about the proposed meaning, it is necessary for our discourse to dwell for a little while on the natural consideration of the body. For who does not know that the nature of our body does not have life in itself by its own proper bodily substance, but holds itself together and remains in existence ^D through a power flowing into it, drawing to itself by constant motion what is lacking and expelling what is superfluous? And just as a wineskin full of some liquid, if that which lies at the bottom should leak out, would not keep the shape of its bulk unless other liquid entered from above to replace what is emptied; so that one who sees the distended capacity of this vessel knows that it is not proper to the appearance, but that what flows in is what gives shape to the bulk that contains it; so also the structure of our body has nothing within our knowledge that is proper for its own constitution, but it remains in existence through the power that is introduced into it. And this power is and is called nourishment. Moreover, it is not the same for all bodies that are nourished, but each one is appropriate, provided by the One who orders nature.

^A For some animals are nourished by roots that are dug up; for others grass is the food; and for some the nourishment is flesh. But for man, the primary food is bread, and for the persistence and preservation of moisture, drink becomes necessary—not water alone, but often seasoned with wine, to bring aid to the internal warmth within us. Therefore, he who looks at these things looks, in effect, at the magnitude of our body. For when they are in me, they become blood and body, the nourishment being appropriately reduced by the inherent power of transformation into the form of the body.

These things having been distinguished and clarified by us in this way, our thought must be recalled again to the matters proposed. For it was being asked how that body of Christ which is in Him vivifies the whole nature of men, in whom there is faith, being distributed to all, and yet itself being in no way diminished. Perhaps, therefore, we are not far from the probable reasoning. For if the subsistence of any body consists of nourishment, that is, of food and drink, and the food is bread, and the drink is water gladdened by wine; and the Word of God, as has been defined earlier, who is both God and Word, was tempered to human nature; and when He was in our body, He did not innovate any other constitution for human nature, but through those things which are customary and congruent, He gave to His own body its persistence, maintaining its substance by food and drink. And the food was bread. How then in us, as has often been said already, he who sees bread sees in a certain way the human body, because when it has been in it, it becomes this: so also there, the body that received God, having accepted bread as nourishment, was in a certain way the same as it, with the nourishment, as has been said, passing over into the nature of the body. For what is common to all was also acknowledged in that flesh, namely, that that body too was sustained by bread. ^B But the body of the Word of God, by the indwelling of God, was transformed to divine dignity. Rightly, therefore, do I believe that even now the bread sanctified by the Word of God is transmuted into the body of the Word of God. For indeed, that body was bread in power. But it was sanctified by the habitation of the Word, who dwelt in the flesh as in a tabernacle. Therefore, just as the bread in that body was transmuted into divine power, so too by the same [Word] it happens similarly now. For there also the grace of the Word made holy the body whose substance was from bread, and in a certain way it was itself also bread; and here likewise the bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, not by passing through food and drink into the body of the Word, [C/D] but by being immediately transmuted into the body of the Word, as it was said by the Word, "This is my body." For all flesh is also nourished by moisture; for without being joined to it, that which is earthly in us would not remain in life. Just as through the

^A solid and firm food we support and stabilize the firmness of the body, in the same way we also add to the moisture from a nature of the same kind. Which, when it has become within us, is turned into blood through the power of alteration, and especially if it receives through wine the power of transforming into heat. Since, therefore, that God-receiving flesh of His also accepted this part for its own constitution—and the Word, having been manifested, for this reason mingled Himself with the perishing nature of men, so that by communion with the divinity, humanity might at the same time be deified—for this reason, by the dispensation of His grace, He sows Himself through the flesh into all believers, commingled and tempered with the bodies of believers, whose substance is from bread and wine, so that by union with that which is immortal, man might also become a partaker of incorruption. He gives these things, having ^B by the power of the blessing trans-elemented into that the nature of those things which appear.

Item concerning the transmutation of the body and blood of the Lord, by Damascene.

The economy of human salvation.—God who is good, and all-good, and above-good, being wholly goodness itself, because of the exceeding wealth of His own goodness, did not endure to be the good alone—that is, His own nature, which was shared by nothing—but for this reason He made first the intellectual and heavenly powers, then the visible and sensible world, then, from an intellectual and a sensible [substance], man. Now all things that have been made by Him share in His goodness according to their existence. For He Himself is existence to all things, since in Him are all things that are, not only because He brought them forth from nothing into being, but because His action sustains and holds together the things ^C that were made by Him; and those that have life [share] more abundantly. For He communicates good to them, both in that they exist and in that they have received life. But those that use reason enjoy the participation of the good more copiously, both on account of the things we have just said and also on account of the reason in which they are powerful. For they are joined to Him by a closer necessity, as it were, even though He otherwise surpasses all things by an incomparable sublimity. But man, having been made rational and self-determining, received the power to be joined to God unceasingly through his own choice, if he remained in the good—that is, in obedience to the Creator. Since, therefore, he fell into transgression of the commandment of Him who made him, and became subject to death and corruption, the Producer and Creator ^D of our race, because of the bowels of His mercy, was made like us, having become man in all things without sin, and was united to our nature. For because He bestowed upon us His own image and His own spirit, and we did not keep them, He Himself entered into commerce with our poor and weak nature, that He might cleanse us, and render us incorruptible, and make us partakers again of His own divinity.

^A For it was fitting that not only the first-fruits of our nature should participate in the greater good, but that every man who wishes it should also be born a second birth, and be nourished with a strange food, and one appropriate to that birth, and thus reach the measure of perfection. Therefore, through His own birth, that is, His incarnation, and through baptism, and passion, and resurrection, He freed the human race from the sin of the first parent, and from death and corruption; and He became the first-fruits of the resurrection, and set Himself as a way, a rule, and an example, so that we too, following in His footsteps, might become by adoption that which He is by nature: sons and heirs of God, and co-heirs with Him. He gave us, therefore, as I said, a second birth, that as we were born of Adam and were made like unto him, inheriting the curse and corruption as if by hereditary right, so, being born of Him, we might be made like unto Him, and inherit His incorruption, blessing, and glory.

^B Since, however, this Man is a spiritual Adam, it was necessary that the birth should be spiritual, and likewise the food. But because we are twofold and composite beings, it was necessary that both the birth should be dual and the food likewise composite. Our birth, therefore, is granted through water and the Spirit—I mean by the holy baptism; but the food is the bread of life itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, who descended from heaven. For when He was about to undergo voluntary death for our sake, in the night in which He was delivering Himself up, He established a new testament for His holy disciples and apostles, and through them for all who believe in Him. Therefore, in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion, having eaten the old Pascha with His disciples and having fulfilled the old covenant, He washed the feet of the disciples, offering a symbol of holy baptism. ^C Then, breaking bread, He gave it to them, saying: Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins. Likewise, also, having taken the cup of wine and water, He distributed it to them, saying: Drink of it, all of you: this is My blood, of the new covenant, which is shed for you for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of man.

For just as all that God did, He did by the operation of the Holy Spirit, so now too the operation of the Spirit works those things which exceed the mode of nature, which cannot be comprehended or understood except by faith alone. ^D "How shall this be to me," said the holy Virgin, "since I know not a man?"

To which the archangel Gabriel answers: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you." You too now ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and water the blood of Christ. I answer you likewise: the Holy Spirit descends and accomplishes these things which exceed speech and thought.

Why bread and wine are used for the Eucharist.

The body of Christ in the Eucharist is not by local arrival, but by the conversion of the elements.

Therefore, to those who receive worthily with faith, it happens for the remission of sins and for eternal life, and for the protection of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily in unbelief, it happens unto punishment and torment, just as the death of the Lord has become life and incorruption for those who believe, for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, but for those who disobey, and for those who killed the Lord, unto eternal punishment and torment.

The bread and wine are not a figure of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!), but the very body of the Lord, endowed with divinity; since the Lord Himself said: "This is My [body]," not a figure.

^A And before this, He said to the Jews: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." And again: "He who eats Me, will live."

The Rite of Giving the Eucharist into the Hands

Wherefore, let us approach with all fear and a pure conscience, and with an unwavering faith: and it will certainly be for us as we believe, not doubting. Moreover, let us venerate It with all purity, both of soul and body; for it is dual. Let us approach It with ardent desire, and having arranged our hands in the form of a cross, let us receive the body of the Crucified; and applying [to It] our eyes, ^B and lips, and brows, let us partake of the divine coal, so that the fire of the desire within us, having received the heat of the coal, may burn up our sins, and illuminate our hearts, and by the participation of the divine fire we may be inflamed and deified. Isaiah saw a coal; but a coal is not mere wood, but is united with fire. So also the bread of communion is not mere bread, but is united with divinity. But the body which is joined to divinity is not one nature; but there is one nature of the body, and another—that of the divinity united to it. Whence it comes about that the two together are not one nature, but two.

The Eucharist as Figure

^C Melchizedek, the priest of God Most High, received Abraham returning from the slaughter of the foreigners. That table prefigured this mystical table, just as that priest bore the figure and image of the true High Priest, Christ. For He says: "You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek." The loaves of proposition adumbrated this bread. This is that pure and unbloody sacrifice which the Lord said through the prophet would be offered to Him from the rising of the sun even to its setting.

The Fruits of the Eucharist

It is the body and blood of Christ, which enters into the constitution of our soul ^D and body—not being consumed, not corrupted, nor going into the draught (God forbid!), but into our substance and preservation; it is a defense against all manner of harm, and a cleansing of all filth. Just as when one finds adulterated gold, he purifies it through the searing heat of the test, that we may not be condemned in the future age along with this world. For it cleanses us from diseases and all manner of afflictions, as the divine Apostle says: "For if we were to judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are corrected by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." And this is what he says: "For he who receives the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself." Through It, however, being cleansed, we are united to the body of the Lord and to His Spirit, and we become the body of Christ.

^A If, then, some have called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as the God-bearing Basil said, they did not say so after the sanctification, but before the sanctification, having called the offering itself thus.

Participation is what it is called, for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. It is also called Communion, and truly is so, because through it we commune with Christ, and participate in both His flesh and His divinity; and to commune is also to be joined to one another through it; for since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ, and one blood, and members of one another, being constituted as fellow-members of Christ. ^B

Title XXVI.

Against the Messalians.

During the times of the emperors Valentinian and Valens, the heresy of the Messalians sprouted. This name, when translated into the Greek language, signifies "Euchites" (prayers). For the name of prayer is highly regarded among them, and they babble it up and down, and this is their term of reverence. By "prayer" they mean either the petition which each offers to God, or the "Our Father," which the Lord delivered to the apostles, or some other prayer known only to those among them who are more perfect in impiety, but hidden from all the others because of its absurdity, I suppose, and its satanic incantation. ^C They also have another name applied to them, from the actual fact. They are called "Enthusiasts" (Enthousiastai), since they receive the operation of some demon, and presume this to be the Holy Spirit. But those who suffer from this disease in its fullness renounce manual labor as evil, and, abandoning themselves for the most part to sleep, they call the phantasies of their dreams an "enthusiasm." Many other leaders of this heresy arose, but especially Adelphius; him Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, summoned from Edessa and, pretending to have a great zeal for his discipline, craftily enticed him to vomit forth all the venom of his hidden doctrines. When this disease was made manifest, they were driven from Syria and departed into Pamphylia. We shall reveal some of the tenets of these people as we proceed, which have been taken from their own book, and were then set forth for all so that they might be despised and loathed. ^D

They say that the three hypostases—of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are resolved into one hypostasis. This they stole from the Sabellian heresy, which gathers the three hypostases into one, confounding and mixing them, and hands down a single hypostasis for the three persons. Of that impious opinion...

…confutationem in eo titulo, qui adversus Sabellianos inscriptus est, reperies. ^A

They say that the divine nature is easily turned and changed into whatever it wishes, so that it may be joined to souls that are worthy of it. And yet, to be turned and changed is the property of created things. For whatever is created is also mutable. For those things which took their beginning from change—that is, which were brought forth from nothing—these are entirely subject to change and to corruption, as are those things contained in the world; and those things which change by intent and will, such as angels and souls, both toward good and toward evil. Since, however, God is uncreated, he is also entirely immutable. For of those whose essence is contrary, the condition of their essence is likewise contrary. And while in another way change is a type of motion befitting created things, God is by nature immovable, and is more excellent than to fall into any of those six types of motion ^B about which the philosophers dispute, since He is without quantity and without quality, and infinite in every sense, as regards beginning and end. If, therefore, God is by nature immovable, He is also entirely immutable.

They say that "seed and Word" descended into the womb of the Mother of God. Far be such nefarious impiety from us! Their discourse is truly the seed of the devil, which, falling into their own souls, compels them to pour forth such poison. Whose seed, pray, fell into the virginal womb, as they themselves drivel? Was it a man's? They will by no means say this, since they themselves also confess that the Mother of Christ is a Virgin. Was it from heaven? If they say this, we shall oppose them with those arguments we have elaborated against those who deny that Christ’s birth from the Virgin took place and who affirm that His body was heavenly—arguments which are contained in the seventh chapter of that title which is against the Armenians, and in the chapter concerning the Mother of God, and what follows thereafter in the title ^C Against the Paulicians, in which places the impiety of these men is openly refuted.

They deny that divine baptism is able to tear out the roots of sins. But our Lord Jesus Christ says: *Unless one is born again of water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of God*. Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit is divine fire—for He also descended upon the disciples in the form of tongues of fire, concerning which the Forerunner also spoke to the crowds, testifying to the excellence of Christ: *He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire*—just as sensible fire, if it seizes upon a forest, burns up everything that is upon the face of the earth, and dries up the roots of these things, and cleanses the place of any defilement from them; so, too, does the Holy Spirit, and indeed by much more: for He is a fire ^D consuming the wickedness of those who are baptized. For these, I think, are the roots of sin which those men allege…

refer. But if water cleanses the bodies of men completely, who would doubt that the Holy Spirit cleanses and wipes away the scars, the stains, and the pollutions of the soul by comparison incomparably more? And He does not merely cleanse, but also illuminates; and He does not merely illuminate, but also deems one worthy of divine gifts, just as the apostles teach, and especially Paul in the distributions of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were apportioned to those who are baptized.

^B They say that every child born drags from the first parent, Adam, along with human nature, also servitude to demons, and bears a demon co-essential with himself, inhabiting him and exercising power over him; and that holy baptism and every other most divine action are unable to expel him, but that only the earnest and diligent prayer, through the throat-clearing and spitting of the one praying, effects this. And when he has been expelled, the Holy Spirit visibly and perceptibly arrives to signify His own presence, and liberates the body from the movement of the passions, and bestows such impassibility that one no longer has need henceforth of fasting to afflict the body, nor of discipline to bridle it and teach it to walk in order. ^C Moreover, that one who has attained this sort of impassibility can foresee things to come and look upon the divine Trinity with his eyes; for they say it is made manifest to such men alone by such perceptions. This, then, is their dogma; but we say in response to this, that all who are descended from the first-formed man draw from him such a nature as he himself possessed when he began to beget. For every offspring is equal to its begetter by nature. If, then, God at the beginning assigned a demon to the nature of the first-formed man and made it a slave to the demon joined to its essence, then rightly did his descendants also inherit a demoniacal and servile [nature]. But if He fashioned it free and self-governing, they are talking utter nonsense and raving. For if it were not free and self-governing, He would not have legislated a commandment for the progenitor ^D regarding which plants he should eat of, and which he should not touch.

If God made our nature a slave to the enemy, and all things done according to nature are blameless and unpunishable, then there will be no judgment of sinners, nor any punishment. For they have a strong defense against God: "You subjected our nature to the servitude of demons; and it is necessary for slaves to do those things which their masters command." If God made our nature a slave to demons, and demons drive us to every evil, God will be found the author of all human evils. But in fact, God is the cause of no evil. For no evil proceeds from Him who is by nature good. Therefore, God did not make our nature a slave to demons.

but free, as has been said before, and possessed of self-determination. ^A Demons, however, are our enemies, though they are not of the same substance or cohabitants with us; sometimes they attack us openly from without, and at other times they assault us in hidden ways. For if they had power over us, and that from our very birth, they would not have allowed us to come into the light, or, having come into the light, they would not have allowed us to live for even a single day. For their envy against men is great, their hatred is indescribable, their war is without truce, and their fury and madness cannot be easily recounted.

That demons possess no power not only over men, but not even over swine, the legion of demons showed, as the Gospel relates. For when expelled by our Savior, they requested that He permit them to enter into the herd of swine feeding there at that time. ^B When He gave permission and they entered, the whole herd rushed headlong down the cliff into the sea and was drowned. The Savior did not allow them into the herd of swine to grant a favor to the demons, but to show the madness they harbor against mankind. For they killed the swine so that their masters, who were men, would be afflicted by sorrow and loss; and so that we might learn that they have no power even over swine, as we have said, much less over men, unless they are at some time permitted by God for the correction of those who are possessed, or for some other most just dispensation.

If we had demons exercising power over us from our mother’s womb, ^C the great Paul would not have said that our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual hosts of wickedness, that is, against incorporeal evil powers; nor would he have encouraged us, fearful as we are, and made us who are softer than wax harder than iron; nor would he have armed us against the demons who are arrayed against us, exhorting and crying out: "Take up the armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." ^D And when detailing the types of armor, he added: "Stand therefore, having girt your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet in the preparation of the Gospel of peace. Above all, taking up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one; and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." The power of these weapons is so great that our adversaries cannot even endure their shining brilliance. For how could anyone contend with him who has power over him? How could one resist him who holds him and defeats him?

Our Lord Jesus Christ would cast out demons by command alone. His disciples, however, drove them away by his invocation, and those possessed by them...

^A were healed, not using the painstaking prayer of the Messalians, nor using expectoration and spitting for the driving out of demons. If the Lord said concerning demons that "this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," he was not speaking simply of everyone who prays and fasts, but specifically of those who have been adopted as sons to God and the Father through divine baptism, and who have become co-heirs with the Son by nature through grace, of whom the Apostle said: "As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." For what infidel or heretic could drive out a demon through fasting and prayer, even if he were to show these to be peerless? For of those whose faith is worthless and weak, their prayer and fasting are also entirely so. And every work of theirs is not only not fearsome, but is actually pleasing to the demons—unless, somewhere, one of such as these should seem to have driven out a demon through some sorcery. Therefore, he who prays and fasts according to the word of the Lord must be a partaker of other virtues as well, but must especially practice these two: I mean prayer and fasting. But he who exercises only prayer, while neglecting and becoming slothful regarding the others, will not only fail to drive out the demon dwelling within him, as these people say, but, because of his neglect of good things, will actually draw in a demon from ^B the outside, even if he were to spit ten thousand times every day, and even if he were to pour out rivers of saliva.

If demons were naturally united to the nature of humans, it would be impossible for them to be separated from it by any device until the end. For things united naturally are inseparable until they arrive at their final dissolution. But if they are being driven out by some method, they are evidently not united naturally, but are encroaching and dwelling together from the outside.

If, because of the transgression of the first commandment, God had attached demons to the nature of humans and handed it over subject to them, someone might accuse Him of great cruelty and harshness: first, because He made the human body susceptible to disease and mortal because of said transgression, and then because He tortured humans through the tyranny of demons who order them to commit soul-destroying sins, and finally because He allotted to those who sin incurably the outer fire ^C prepared for the devil and his angels, and other eternal punishments. But surely God is kind and just. To the transgression of the commandment and the resulting sin of the forefather, diseases and death were the penalty that the transgression and sin brought about; and this was out of kindness, so that once sin was interrupted, the evil might not be immortal, as Gregory the Theologian said. But eternal punishments are not the penalty for the first transgression, but for the sins of each individual human being—that is, for those who, from the first parent ^D up to the consummation of the world, have applied no treatment to their sins.

^A But as for the tyranny of the demons, it was not imposed upon men by God; for who, possessing reason, would acknowledge this? Rather, the demons themselves, sometimes openly warring against men, sometimes plotting secretly, and sometimes fawning upon them craftily, deceive them and take them captive and subjugate those whom sloth and the resulting laxity have betrayed to them.

Demons are sometimes said to rule over men, not because—having received the authority over them from God—they exercise it, but because those who are ruled by them, having been suspicious of them and having apostatized from God and the divine commandments, have voluntarily placed their own necks under the yoke of the demons.

^B Since, however, we have clearly demonstrated that demons are not conjoined to the nature of men, nor do they possess authority over it, but that sometimes they rush out from an opposing line to join battle with us, and sometimes use machines [—] lying in wait, setting traps, deceiving, pilfering, and plotting in every way (for these things are the mark not of those possessing authority, but of those fighting against others), it is superfluous to speak of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which the Messalians claim occurs after the expulsion of the indwelling demon, and of the rest of the subsequent series of their doctrine. For when the root of that [doctrine] has been completely torn up, the branches and leaves have also fallen away; unless, perhaps, one ought to add something regarding the fact that they claim that those who have received the coming of the Holy Spirit among them, as has been said, no longer have need of fasting, nor instruction, nor any vigilance. ^C For the demon, having deceived many of them and having induced the appearance of the coming of the Holy Spirit, and having created fantasies, has subsequently left them unguarded, inasmuch as they believe they have already escaped [suffering] and become impassible, and has wretchedly cast them headlong into various sins and impurities.

But furthermore, to say that one sees with the senses the holy Trinity—which is invisible and without form, that is, according to its nature—is entirely the mark of those lacking sense, mind, and reason. For "no one has ever seen God," I mean, the nature of God. And who is it that teaches this? "The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," as the evangelist John has stated. As for all who are recorded to have seen God, they did not see Him according to His nature, ^D but according to various guises, as He condescended to their optical faculties, and was fashioned and represented in different ways at different times.

They say that not even the apostles were free from the domination of demons. O, the impudent blasphemy! Were those who drove demons out of the possessed not free from the domination of demons? How then did the servants persecute their masters? They who had received authority from the Savior not only to cast out demons, but also to cure "every disease and every infirmity," and to "tread upon serpents and scorpions" and, in short, to prevail "over all the power of the enemy"?

^A They say that the Holy Spirit and a demon dwell together in man. But how shall God and a demon dwell together—the most pure with the most impure of everything? Light and darkness, which are diametrically opposed to one another? For wherever the Holy Spirit shall descend, every demon flees, retreating swiftly and without looking back, as if from fire. For the Holy Spirit is God; and if He is God, He is also a fire consuming all the strength of the demons. And darkness is indeed dissolved by the presence of light, and the wicked demon is driven out, tormented by the scourge of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; for for things that are utterly contrary there is no coexistence; for the weaker is destroyed or driven out.

They say that evils, that is to say sins, are by nature. We reply to them: If such evils are by nature, and God is the Creator of nature, then God is the author of evils, and there will be neither judgment nor punishment for those who sin, as has been shown above. And the punishments threatened against sinners are false, and the fear of the coming judgment is deceptive. For things that happen by the necessity of nature are pardonable, even if they be very grievous. And if anyone believes that sin is innate, he will certainly pursue it fearlessly on account of its simplicity and its pleasure, as something not to be blamed, and he will choose the broad and spacious way. But if the Lord is true, who is Truth itself, "For I," He says, "am the truth" (John xiv, 6), then the things concerning eternal punishments are also certainly true! For He Himself taught about them as well. And if such punishments are true, there will also be a judgment for those who sin. And if there is to be a judgment for those who sin, then evils—that is, sins—are not by nature. ^B And if they are not by nature, they certainly proceed from will and sloth, on account of which all the workers of iniquity are condemned and punished.

They say that after the apathy of those among them who are perfect, the soul of these feels such pleasure being born in it from the heavenly Bridegroom as a woman feels when her husband has intercourse with her. O the patent craze! If they deem the most pure and most apathetic union with the Savior to be a most passionate voluptuousness, and insult it by daring to liken it to the pleasure of the discharge of generative organs!

^C They say that the soul of one among them who has arrived at apathy is transformed into the divine nature. But if this were true, he who is transformed into the divine nature would also be God by nature. For the divine nature is God by nature. And since they say that many of them arrive at apathy and are transformed into the divine nature, then there will be many gods by nature, and they will surpass the Greek polytheism by a great and innumerable count.

They say it is possible for a man, after the apathy they teach, to receive the very person of the Holy Spirit ^D sensibly and in all fullness. But we…

say to them: If the apathy that is among you were true, and not entirely false, given that your faith is heterodox and discredited, we would have provided an answer even to this chapter. But since this, too, has been corrupted along with your other practices and is judged spurious, it is superfluous to argue against things that fall of their own accord and are nothing. We say, however, and we believe, that an indwelling of the Father and the Son occurs in the one who is purified as he ought to be purified, just as the Lord said: "I and the Father will come, and we will make our abode with him." And where the Father and the Son are, there is also, necessarily, the Holy Spirit. ^A Yet the indwelling of the holy Trinity occurs in such a way as a human being is capable of containing it, not as the Godhead exists by nature. For it is uncontainable by any creature, on account of its being infinite and indefinite.

They say that a man ought to have two souls, one common to all men, and another which is heavenly. If, therefore, they accepted the Mosaic and other prophetic books, we would have drawn proofs from them to expose the falsehood of such a doctrine; but since they confess that they embrace—for the time being—the evangelical and apostolic books, let them hear what the Lord says to the apostles: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body." And Paul the apostle, in Troas, when everyone thought Eutychus was dead, said: "Do not be troubled, for his soul is in him." ^B We omit many other testimonies by which it is made clear that single individuals have single souls.

They simulate the election of clerics, encroaching upon the rank of priests and deacons, so that they may merely arrogate to themselves a certain power and authority. Nay, they even put on the habit of monks, wishing by this means to remain hidden, and to deceive the multitude.

They abhor labor of the hands, neglecting the great Paul, who says: "If anyone does not wish to work, let him not eat." And again: "These hands have served me, and those who were with me." These ignorant men do not notice that idleness and leisure stir up the usual passions and teach unusual ones, and that the members of the body become a burden to those who do not use them.

They decree that one must not give to those who ask, or to those who are otherwise needy and poor, or to those who in any circumstance are in need of alms and distribution, but that only those are to be admonished who are called "blessed" by the Lord as "poor in spirit." ^C But I would say to them: "O good men, do you not know that the Lord commanded us to distribute to all who ask? For, He says, 'Give to everyone who asks of you.'" But your iniquity cannot be hidden, seeing that you draw to yourselves the things that belong to the poor, and apply them only to your own ^D

seeing your own ease and getting yourselves pampered. For how, or whence, are you poor, being rather destitute in virtues and abounding in every vice? For a corrupt tree does not bear good fruit, and one who is evilly disposed cannot bring forth the fruit of virtue. But "poor in spirit" is everyone who is humble for God’s sake. For humility and submissiveness of soul are the foundation of virtues; nor is it obscure that he who is humble for God’s sake is faithful. For it is necessary first to believe, and then to begin to cultivate virtues. ^B They dissolve marriage, although the Lord says: "What God has joined, let not man separate" (Matt. xix, 6), and although He honored marriage in Cana of Galilee by His presence, and the blessed Apostle writes: "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled" (Hebr. xiii, 4). And here they openly oppose both Christ and the apostles, those who insult marriage with curses and detest it.

They permit those who so wish to cut off the propagative parts of the body, and thus to mutilate nature, cutting off the most precious of the things created by God on earth—I mean man, whom God fashioned perfect and good—as if, being altogether imperfect or not well fashioned, he needed to be corrected and perfected as they think best. Yet in truth they maim him, and render him sterile and unfruitful in what pertains to the nature of the body, even though the divine apostles Peter and Paul forbid, in their canons, the amputation of the aforementioned members,5 not to mention the other Fathers and lawgivers who have decreed even fearful punishments for those who dare to practice eunuchism.

They swear without dread, and they perjure themselves, even though our Lord Jesus Christ forbids not only the committing of perjury, but even swearing altogether. But when they are apprehended as heretics, then they deny and anathematize the faith of the Massalians, and they confirm this denial with fearful oaths, thinking they do not sin at all because of the necessity imposed upon them and the fear of those who have apprehended them. They also invent other trifles unworthy of mention, and even less worthy of refutation, given how easily they can be overturned and are self-refuting.

TITLE XXVII. Against the Bogomils.

For *Bog* in the Bulgarian tongue signifies "God," and *Mil* "have mercy." Thus, according to them, a *Bogomil* would be one who implores the mercy of God. ^D The heresy of the Bogomils came into existence not long before our own generation, being a branch of that of the Massalians, and it agrees in most things with their doctrines, though it has also devised some things of its own and increased the contagion. It was brought to light during the reign of our God-guided emperor Alexios, who, governed by the divine will, hunted down its leader with shrewdness and truly admirable skill. This was a certain physician named Basil, a pernicious man, a pestilence, full of corruption, and an instrument of all evils; whom the emperor, when he had summoned him to himself, received honorably, caused to sit beside him, spoke to him pleasantly and kindly, and with sweet...

grace in his discourse, and cleverly feigning himself to be a disciple, easily deceived him, although he had already perniciously deceived many. With the keenness of his mind and the ease of his nature, he uncovered all the malice hidden in the secret place of that putrid and abominable old man, leaving absolutely nothing that he did not investigate and perceive. Therefore, in the dark heart of that most trifling and pernicious old man, as if in a certain lair, he discovered and brought to light the diverse and various wild beasts, the wicked, venomous, and manifold opinions that lay hidden there, by his wisdom and intellect. He commanded me to make known the ridiculous mysteries of this heresy and, having convicted them, to commit them to writing.

1. They reject all the Mosaic books, along with the God who is mentioned in them and the just men who are most dear to Him, and likewise all the rest that were written afterward, as if they were composed by the craft of the devil. May God be propitious to us as we recount their impious opinions! They accept and honor only seven, and hold them in the highest esteem; that is to say, the Psalter, the book of the sixteen Prophets, the Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, and according to John, and the seventh book in which are contained the deeds of the apostles, together with all the Epistles and the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. For, they say, "Wisdom has built herself a house, and has set up seven pillars" (Prov. ix, 1). By this house of wisdom they understand their own most wicked synagogue, and by the seven pillars, the books we have enumerated. ^B Therefore, in rejecting the Mosaic books and those that follow them, they agree with the heresy of the Paulicians. Thus, in that title which was written against them, the chapters should be sought in which we have demonstrated that both the Old Testament and the men who were illustrious therein belong to the good God; and one must read the first chapter and the seven following it, by which that error is plainly refuted. And although the remaining chapters also agree with these seven, yet it will be sufficient to have read these alone. It must be noted, however, that they often cunningly draw words from these books which they reject, in order to prove their own opinions. But if they are convicted by some text from the ^C seven books which we have mentioned, and are pressed to confess the truth, they immediately turn to allegory, that they may take flight and escape.

2. A mask of their deception of the simpler sort is that they profess to believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, while nevertheless they attribute these three titles to the Father, and think that He is endowed with a human form, and that from the membranes of His brain he emits two rays, one of the Son and the other of the Holy Spirit. And so, the faith of these men is turned into a belief in a corporeal and monstrous ^D God, who in reality has no existence. Therefore, that they might attribute these three titles to the Father, they took them from the Sabellian heresy.

^A But the refutation of this doctrine must be sought in the title against the Sabellians. Moreover, the monstrous form and the corporeal and strange shape of their God will suffice for a refutation.

3. They say that the Son and the Holy Spirit are resolved back into the Father, from whom they proceeded, and that he who for five thousand thirty-three years was of three persons, became again of one person, incorporeal indeed, but endowed with a human form. ^B Away with such an absurd argument, entirely alien to all reason! For if he is incorporeal, how is he endowed with a human form?

4. They claim that there was neither Son nor Holy Spirit until the five thousand five hundredth year, and that from that time they received their beginning of existence and were given their names, notwithstanding that the evangelist John bellows in saying: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* Now, *In the beginning was the Word* is the same as saying, *The Word was always.* But if the Word was always in the Father, then the Holy Spirit was surely always with the Son; for not even the word uttered by us is ever found without spirit. Those, however, who say that the Father was without the Word until the five thousand five hundredth year, ^C dogmatize that He was, until that time, without reason and without wisdom—to say nothing of the Holy Spirit and the other absurdities that follow from their foolish talk.

5. They say that the Father begat the Holy Spirit, and that this Spirit begat in a spiritual manner the traitor Judas and the eleven apostles. And they bring forward the Gospel testimony: *Abraham,* it says, *begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren.* They claim that this is written concerning the Holy Trinity. First, then, they introduce not only a son, but a grandson, and not only a grandson, but twelve descendants, as far as the Father is concerned. ^D Furthermore, if the Son is also a father, and the Holy Spirit is in turn a father, behold, three Fathers. How then do they confess one Father? And again, if the Holy Spirit is a son of the Son, behold, here then are two Sons. And how do they confess one Son in the theology of the Trinity, to say nothing for the present of Judas and his brethren?

6. They say that the demon named Satan by the Savior is also a son of God the Father, and is called Satanael, and that he is greater and more preeminent than the Son and Word, being the firstborn, so that they are brothers to one another. They say that Satanael is the steward and holds the second place after the Father, and is clothed in the same robe and habit, and at his right

^A hand, sitting upon a throne, and deemed worthy of the honor immediately following Him, by which he was intoxicated and lifted up into arrogance, and devised a rebellion; and having once seized an opportunity, he tempted the ministering powers, that, casting off the yoke of their ministry, they might follow him and rise up with him against the Father. And to confirm such nonsense as this, they bring forward the parable of the steward of unrighteousness from the Gospel according to Luke, who lessened the debts of the debtors. For they say that this is Satanael, and that such a parable was written concerning him. ^B Next, that the aforementioned angels, being enticed by the lightening of the burdensome ministry and by other extravagant promises—"For I will set my throne," he says, "in the clouds, and I will be like the Most High" (Isa. xiv, 14)—consented to his treachery and plots. And God, having perceived this, cast them all down together from on high. Who would not laugh at the insipid and manifest fabrications of these men? For if Satanael were by nature the Son of God, he would also be by nature God, and altogether immovable and immutable. For it is proper to the divine nature that it never changes, but always remains in the same state. Wherefore, since he was changed, and fell, and was cast down ^C from on high, he was not by nature the Son of God, but had another nature, namely angelic and created, and therefore mutable. But if the Word is the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, as the evangelist John has taught us—"For we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father" (John i, 14), and again, "The Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John i, 18)—then those who say that Satanael is his brother are caught in lies and imposture. For if the Son, the Word, had a brother, he would not be called Only-Begotten. Moreover, if "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," according ^D to the evangelist John—that is to say, he was always with the Father and in the Father—how could there be another, his brother, who was older than him who is before the ages, and who reigns together with the Father, and without whom the Father never was? Otherwise, He would have existed without reason, and without wisdom, and without power, which are all the very nature of the Son and His Word. Therefore, since Satanael, as we have demonstrated, was not by nature the son of God, he certainly did not wear the form and robe of God—not to mention that a robe and garment are appropriate for bodies and composite beings; nor did he sit at the right hand of the throne of majesty, nor does the parable of the steward of unrighteousness, which is in the Gospel according to Luke, pertain to him.

7. They say that Satanael, having been thrown from on high, and being unable to settle upon the waters—for "the earth," he says, "was invisible and unformed"—since he still wore the divine form and habit, and possessed the power of creating, summoned the powers that had fallen with him, and instilled courage in them, and said, "Since God hath made heaven and earth—for 'In the beginning,' He says, 'God created the heaven and the earth'—I too shall make a second heaven, as a second God," and the rest in order. Therefore, they say, he said, "Let there be a firmament."

^A And it came to pass. Let there be this and that, and they all came to be. And having adorned the second heaven, and having drawn back the water from the face of the earth, and having stationed it in the places he deemed fit, as the book of the creation of the world sets forth, and having beautified it, and refined it, and having created all things that grow from the earth, and the animals, and if there were any other thing, he allotted this as a dwelling place for himself and for the apostate powers. Then, having molded the body of Adam from earth mixed with water, he set it upright, from which a certain moisture flowed down onto the right foot, and having poured out through the great toe onto the ground, it bubbled up in a spiral, and formed the shape of a serpent. Satanael, having gathered the spirit within himself, breathed life into the molded body, but the spirit from him, by reason of its laxity, flowed down likewise onto the right foot, and having poured through the great toe, it descended into the spiral shape. It, having been instantly quickened, and severed from the toe, became a serpent, and crept. ^B For this reason, they say, the serpent is wise and prudent, since the inflation of Satanael served for it in place of a soul. Seeing this, this new creator, when he perceived that he was laboring in vain, sent envoys to the good Father, and requested that a breath be sent by Him, promising that the man would be common if he were quickened, and that of his race the places in heaven of the cast-off angels would be filled. And that God, as good, breathed [into him], and inspired into the [creature] molded by Satanael a breath of life, and the man instantly became a living soul that illuminated the body, and adorned it with many graces. Then, when Eve was likewise created from him, and was affected by the same splendor, Satanael, moved by envy, changed his mind and turned himself to laying snares for his own mold, and flowing into the inward parts of the serpent, he deceived Eve, and had intercourse with her, and made her pregnant, so that the seed of this [creature], having arrived first, might gain mastery over the Adamic seed, and as far as possible corrupt it, and not permit it to increase and multiply. And she, having quickly fallen into labor, gave birth to Cain from the cohabitation of Satanael, and a twin sister of like form, whose name was Calonena; but Adam, moved by emulation, also had intercourse with Eve, and begat Abel, whom Cain immediately slew, and introduced murder into life. ^C For this reason, the apostle John also said that Cain was from the evil one. Furthermore, being corrupted lewdly by Satanael with Eve through the serpent, he was immediately deprived of the divine form and vesture, and of the creative power, as it is said, and of the appellation of God. For until then he was also called god. And having been stripped of all these, he became dark and of evil appearance. But the good Father, having stayed his wrath up to this point, allowed him to be the ruler and lord of those things which he himself had created, having fallen from above. Such are the fables of these men. ^D But why could he not settle upon the waters? And if bodies also settle upon the waters, why did he not, together with those failing powers, have his own dwelling place in the waters? Seeing that even now in

^A waters they dwell, and in springs, and in rivers, and in lakes, and in seas; and they remain in underground places, as spirits without bodies, much more incorporeal than the windy spirits. But if he were the Son of God by nature, he would be of equal power to the Father by nature, just as the only begotten Son says: "I and the Father are one." And again: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." And again: "All that the Father has is mine." And again: "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe me." Being of equal power, he would have stood his ground, since he even meditated revolt entirely, and would not have been so easily cast down. But how, when cast down, did he still possess the form of God, and the robe, and His creative power? For it behooved him first to be stripped of these, and then to be cast down. But since this part has proven ^B mythical—and indeed, how was he not able to alight upon the waters, or rather, since alighting is characteristic of a body, how was he not able to have the water as a dwelling place along with the powers that fell with him?—and since it appears stripped of all truth, its consequences also appear false and groundless. For we must observe how, from the Mosaic book—which they reject—they bring forth testimony, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." To dogmatize, however, that Satanael created the firmament, and that he gathered the waters into the gatherings prepared for them, and that he adorned the firmament and the earth, and all that follows up to the breathing of life into the first-formed man, all this was stolen from the Mosaic account of the genesis of the world; but the Bogomils, following the dogma of the Paulicians, attributed the creation of these things to Satanael. For they attribute the creation not only of other things, but also of the first man, and of the earth, and of ^C all that is in the world, to the evil one. Look then in the title "Against the Paulicians" for the chapters that are inscribed: "That there are not two principles, but one author of heaven and earth, and of those things that are in between," and you will find in them various arguments by which this opinion of the Bogomils can easily be refuted. There, too, you will clearly find in the subsequent chapters, which are similarly inscribed: "That there is one author of body and soul." For the fable about the serpent, fashioned by them, we shall omit as worthy of laughter rather than refutation. Furthermore, what messenger did he send to the Father and God whom he had attacked with treachery, now that he was declared an enemy? For no one of those who had defected with him dared to undertake that duty. And again, no one of the angels ministering to God would have accepted the task of reconciling the enemy of his own Lord and his own enemy to [God]. And to these things, how would the good God have consented to the request of the ^D enemy, that He (God) should send down a soul into the body formed by him (Satanael), so that man might be a common being? "For what communion has light with darkness? And what agreement has God with Belial?" Furthermore, how did Satanael, who is without a body, lie with Eve in a bodily manner? By a vision? But if by a vision, how did he beget sons from her? Or why was Cain, his son, not equal and similar to him, but to Adam? For every offspring is by nature equal and similar to its progenitor. For what the apostle John said, that "Cain was of the wicked one," these words do not mean that he was begotten by him in body, but that he learned wickedness from him. For often also a disciple is called a son, and a teacher (as we are wont to say) a father.

^A Since it has been shown—as is recorded in the chapters against the Paulicians to which we referred the reader a little while ago—that Satan is the creator of none of the worldly creatures, it follows that God did not appoint him lord and master over any of the creatures in the world. But since the word "world" is multifaceted, and signifies also the malice and wickedness that is in the world, of which the Lord spoke to the disciples when He said, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own," Satan is called the prince of this alone; for he, having departed from what is honorable, brought forth wickedness, and by means of it, he is established as prince and master of those who, being deceived by it, yield themselves to him of their own accord.

8. They say that while men were being bitterly tyrannized and cruelly destroyed, scarcely a few individuals became part of the Father’s portion and ascended to the order of the angels. And these, they claim, are those mentioned in the genealogies of the Gospel according to Matthew and according to Luke. ^B Yet, they say, the Father, having been deceived and having eventually perceived that He was being wronged—in that, after having bestowed a more excellent part upon man and having completed the most essential parts in perfecting him, He was nevertheless being deprived of the greater number of the human race, and after He had taken pity on the soul which He Himself had breathed into them, which was being afflicted by such miserable servitude—finally, for the sake of vengeance, in the five thousand five hundredth year, brought forth from His own heart the Word, that is, the Son and God. For it is written: "My heart has brought forth a good Word." ^C And this Word and Son, they contend, is the archangel Michael. For His name, He says, shall be called "the Angel of great counsel." He is called "archangel," he says, because he excels all the angels, and "Jesus," because he heals every disease and every infirmity, and "Christ," because he was anointed in the flesh. He came down from above and flowed in through the right ear of the Virgin, and put on flesh which, in appearance indeed, seemed to consist of matter and to be similar to a human body, but in truth was immaterial and divine. Furthermore, he went out again through the same part through which he had entered, the Virgin perceiving neither his entry nor his exit, but simply finding him lying in the cave and swaddled in cloths; and [they say] that he accomplished the dispensation in the flesh, and performed and taught those things which are contained in the Gospels, ^D yet that he was subject to human affections only in appearance and opinion. And when he seemed to be crucified and to die and to rise again, he dissolved the scene and revealed the play, and having laid aside the mask, he laid hold of the deserter and bound him with a thick and heavy chain and shut him up in Tartarus, and stripped him of the title of "Lord," and—

^A of his name, that is, the "El," as being angelic. For he permitted him to be called Satan, and thereafter, having fulfilled the ministry for which he had come, to return to the Father, and to sit at His right hand on the throne from which Satanael had been cast out. Then to enter whence he had come out, and to be resolved again into the Father, in whom he was in the beginning, being enclosed in His womb. But now we must proceed to refute the absurdities of these men. First, not all those mentioned in the genealogies of the evangelists, both Matthew and Luke, were godly; but, a few excepted, the rest were utterly reprobate, ungodly, and lawless. And this is clear from the books which contain their lives. For even if the Bogomils reject these, they cannot say that the evangelists took their names from other books of theirs. How then, those whose life even the earth itself found unworthy, having ascended into heaven, did they obtain the places from which the angels had fallen? And how did He who knows all things before their creation ^B perceive only late that He had been deceived by Satanael? But that we may run through the points that follow—we do little or no injury to the truth—if in the year 5500 the Father begat the Word and Son by a divine and ineffable generation, how does the apostle John cry out, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*? And how were *all things made through Him, and without Him was not anything made* that has been made, as the same one says? How also does the apostle Paul say that *through Him the Father made the ages*? I am also astonished at the surpassing madness that follows: how are they not ashamed to call the archangel Michael the Son of God by nature, and to say that he is the Lord who became man and wrought the salvation of men? For if the archangel Michael is a creature and a servant, as are ^C all the heavenly powers, how is he Son by nature and consubstantial with the Father? Unless, perhaps, they would also call the Father a creature, and his own servant, which is both absurd and contradictory. But the Son by nature, that is, our Lord Jesus Christ, is called the Angel of Great Counsel, because, just as the human word, which is uttered by the mouth, announces the motions of the mind from which it has proceeded, so also this Word of God announced to His disciples the great counsel of the Father, or the mystery of the humanity assumed by Him, and the evangelical commandments, and the salvation of those who believe accruing from them. Wherefore He said: *I speak nothing from Myself, but whatever I have heard from My Father, these things I announce to you*. Since, therefore, it has been demonstrated that the archangel Michael is a servant, while He who is the Son by nature and assumed humanity is the Lord by nature, it is certain that the titles which they attribute to the archangel Michael, ^D when they call him either Jesus or Christ, are empty, and therefore they should be passed over in silence. But what they say, that he put on flesh devoid of matter, and the things that deny the true generation from the Virgin, are drawn from the madness of the Manichaeans and from those heresies which existed before them. Therefore, as regards that title which [is] against

^A the Armenians, read the seventh chapter, and go down to wherever it sends you, and you will find no mean refutations. It is also ridiculous and absurd that they say the syllable has been taken away from the name Satanael. For even before He had overthrown his tyranny: *I was seeing*, says God become man, *Satan falling like lightning from heaven*, when the syllable had not yet been taken away. It is also superfluous to show that after His ascension He sat upon the throne of Satanael at the right hand of the Father. For it has been previously proven that he was neither by nature ^B son nor firstborn, nor did he have a throne, nor did he ever sit at the right hand of the Father.

9. They say that the angels who had fallen, upon hearing that Satanael had promised to the Father that their places in heaven would be filled from the race of men, looked lewdly upon the daughters of men, and took them as wives, in order that their seed might return to heaven to the places of their fathers. For, they say, seeing that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, they took wives for themselves. They call these [men] the sons of God, just as [they call] themselves generated by him. From their conjunction, they say, giants were born, who fought against Satanael and won a triumph over him on behalf of men. For this reason, he was enraged and brought the flood upon them, and destroyed with them every living ^C flesh, but only Noah, who did not have a daughter, had remained ignorant of the defection of Satanael, and had remained in his service, by whose worship he had allowed Satanael to let him build the ark and save himself alone with those who were in it. Such are their trifles. But we, as far as concerns the lewd intercourse of angels with women and the procreation of children, answer what we said above when we spoke about the lewd intercourse of Satanael with Eve and the procreation of children. Scripture, however, calls the sons of God who took women as wives the sons of Seth, who was called a god on account of his god-like life and the blamelessness of his conduct; but it calls girls of men those who descended from the race of Cain and his offspring. Therefore, it was not Satanael but God Himself who brought the flood upon those who were flooded, whom Noah himself knew and worshiped, and by whom he was commanded ^D to construct the ark. This was the author of the Old Testament, who we have clearly demonstrated in the title *Against the Paulicians* is properly and truly God, in those chapters in which we show that the Old Testament belongs to the good God, and those who were illustrious in it, as well as in the chapters that follow these.

10. They say that Moses, deceived by Satanael, returned to Egypt and deceived the people of the Jews, and having worked wonders and signs through the

energy of Satanael, went up to Mount Sinai, and received the law handed down by Satanael, and destroyed through it countless myriads, and they cite the Apostle as a witness for this, when he says: "I had not known sin, but by the law." ^A And again: "But when the commandment came, sin revived." But, O you architects of wickedness, why did you maliciously suppress what follows? For it is written immediately that: "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." If, according to the Apostle's testimony, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good, then these commandments and ordinances would not be from the impure, unjust, and wicked Satanael. For a corrupt tree brings forth corrupt fruit, but a good one brings forth good fruit, just as the Lord also declared. But that the stated words of the Apostle might also be clarified, one must note that he did not say that the law is the producer of sin, but its pointer, inasmuch as it exposes it and commands that it be avoided as a cause of destruction. For since the written law which forbids sin had not yet been given, even if it were practiced, it was not then recognized as so pernicious and to be shunned. But hear how "sin revived when the commandment came." Because before the legal commandment it was weak, and as it were dead, not able to bring as much condemnation upon sinners as it brings after the law, and for this reason it did not fight much ^B against them; but when the law was given to men, the destroyer and enemy of sin, then it was most especially aroused, and in a way revived, that is to say, it breathed fiercely and raged with madness against those who had accepted the legal commandments. That Moses was not deceived by Satanael, but that the One who truly is God sent him, and He Himself gave him the law, and that he did not destroy, but led those many myriads through it, you will find in the treatise against the Paulicians, just as we declared in the chapter before this.

11. That they claim only those to be holy who are genealogized in Matthew and Luke

11. They say that only those are holy who are genealogized in Matthew and Luke, as has been said before, and the sixteen prophets, and the apostles, and the martyrs, who were slaughtered for not worshipping idols. But the hierarchs and the Fathers they all alike reject, as idolaters because of the veneration of the images. And they exclude all the pious kings from the lot of the Christians, and call only the Iconoclasts "orthodox" and "faithful," and especially Copronymus. ^C For they despise the venerable images, and call them "idols of the nations, silver and gold, works of men's hands," ignoring that "image" is one thing, and "idol" another; and that the exemplars of the idols are non-existent and false; for they termed them gods, who were not gods, but demons falsely arrogating to themselves divinity. But the images among us are real exemplars, and truly refer to that to which they are called.

^A And idols indeed are the simulacra of the wicked, but the images of the saints are likenesses. But concerning the images of the saints we have disputed more broadly in the title *Against the Opponents of Images*.

12. The exarch of their heresy being asked by us, "Why do you reject the holy priests and the blessed Fathers, whose relics work miracles?" he opened his profane lips and belched forth a wicked word. For he said that demons are co-heirs with them, those who instructed them while they were still alive, and who now, sitting by their tombs, perform portents under their persona, so as to deceive the ignorant and persuade them to adore the impure as if they were holy. For "demons have as much power as they wish, having received it from on high until the end of the seven ages." But from where, O trifler and foolish old man, did you learn this? Or where will you place that evangelical word which the Lord spoke a little before the time of His Passion, saying, "Now the prince of this world will be cast out"? ^B And if the prince is cast out, how much more so the demons, who are under his rule? Furthermore, how do demons, who tremble at the relics of the blessed Fathers, cling to them? For often when those vexed by demons approach their tombs, the demons flee away, being lashed and driven off by the power of the relics as if by fire. If then their relics drive away demons, how much more did they, when alive, pursue them; and the demons did not even dare to approach them, but fled as if being beaten by them. If they fled from them, it is manifest that they were not dwelling with them, nor teaching them.

13. The Bogomils say that demons always flee from them alone as if from the shot of an arrow, but that they inhabit every other human being, teaching him wicked things, and leading him to flagitious and impious deeds; and when he dies, they dwell again in his relics and remain at the tomb and await the resurrection, so that they may be punished together with him, and not even in punishment do they abandon them. ^C That individual demons dwell in individual men they learned from the heresy of the Massalians; look for the fifth chapter in the title against them, and the eight that follow, and you will learn the absurdity of that opinion. Since the beginning has been demonstrated to be false, the end also is shown to be similar, I mean regarding the relics and the dwelling of demons therein. And according to another argument, if a demon remained with each of the dead awaiting the final resurrection, the demons would give out. For from Adam until now, innumerable myriads of men have died. ^D But that the demons do not flee from the Bogomils alone, but rather live with them and behave with them in a familiar manner, is clear both from their other errors and from the fact that they appear to them in various shapes and forms, as you will find below.

14. They despise the divine cross, as the destroyer of the [Saviour, which one ought rather to honor, as the destroyer of the devil. For until then, death...]

but from that time on it became a life-giving weapon, most royal and most formidable to the enemies, inasmuch as it was sprinkled with the Lord’s blood and water. But this has also been spoken of in the title against the Armenians, and you should seek the fourteenth chapter there.

15. Being asked again by us, the aforementioned leader of the heresy, "How do those possessed by demons run to the Cross and bark at it?" he replied that the Cross is especially loved by the demons who dwell within them, as if it were their own work. For they themselves, he says, contrived it for the destruction of the Saviour. There are times, however, when they pretend to treat it with contumely, and often flee from it against their will, so that men, seeing this, might honor it all the more, as the enemy and expeller of demons. The truth among us stands not in this way. For they are dragged, even against their will, by the power of the Cross, and they bark, so that their madness may be made manifest. For the barking, the contortion of the bodies of those possessed, and the tremors are evidence of the torment of the demons. They revile it as an enemy, and flee from it as a persecutor.

16. They say that our baptism is John’s, as it is performed by water, but that theirs is Christ’s, performed by the Spirit, as it seems to them. ^B Wherefore, if anyone flees to them, they re-baptize him. And first of all, they prescribe a time for confession, and purification, and continuous prayer. Then they place the Gospel of John upon his head, and invoke their "holy Spirit," and sing the *Pater noster*. And after such a baptism, they again assign a time for more accurate instruction, a more temperate life, and purer prayer; then they demand testimony as to whether he has observed these things. And if men and women affirm it, they lead him to the more celebrated initiation: for they place the wretch facing the rising sun ^C and again place the Gospel upon his impious head, and those men and women who are present lay their profane hands upon him and sing wicked prayers—that is, a hymn by which they give thanks that he has observed the handed-down impiety. And thus they initiate, and perfect, or rather destroy and sink him, who is worthy of the deep pit and destruction. If, therefore, our baptism were performed by water alone, it would indeed be John’s. But since it is performed not only by water, but also by the Holy Spirit, as the Lord taught, saying, "Unless one is born of water ^D and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God" (Joann. III, 5), they bark in vain. For it has also been spoken of in the title which we wrote against the Paulicians concerning holy baptism, and you should seek the chapters concerning this matter there. Our baptism, therefore, as the Lord taught, is perfected through water and the Holy Spirit. But as for whence the baptism of these men is derived, let them say; for in no respect does it…

appear in any of the seven books approved by them. It remains, therefore, that they learned this from the demons, in order that they might be stripped of the true and divine baptism.

^B 17. They treat with contempt the mystical and fearsome sacred rite, and the holy communion of the Lord’s body and blood, calling it a sacrifice of the demons who dwell in the temples. O impious lips! O more impious tongue! And they bring forward the prophet Isaiah as a witness to prove this, saying: *Those who prepare a table for Fortune, and fill a mixture for the demon* [Isa. lxv, 11]. But the fools do not understand that these words are spoken against those who worship idols, whereas the mystical supper among us was delivered by Christ, who said: *Do this in remembrance of me* [Luc. xxii, 19], as the evangelists teach. Furthermore, it has been spoken of in the discourse against the Paulicians concerning this divine communion, and search there concerning it. But observe this too of theirs: they call the prayer, "Our Father," the bread of communion—for, they say, the "daily bread"—and they likewise call what is mentioned in the Gospel as the testament the cup of communion. For this, they say, is the cup of the *new Testament* [Luc. xxii, 20]. And they call the perception of both of these things the mystical supper. But if one were to subjoin, "And how is the 'Our Father,' as the Lord's body, broken and divided? And how is that utterance, 'Now is the Son of Man glorified' [Joan. xiii, 31], shed as the blood of the Savior for us?" they confess that they do not know. ^C 18. They say that the demons dwell in all the holy temples, having distributed them among themselves according to the rank and power of each. They say that Satan had long since allotted to himself the famous temple in Jerusalem, but after its destruction he usurped the surpassing and celebrated church of the Wisdom of God in this queen of cities. For, they say, the Most High does not dwell in temples made by hands, having heaven as His dwelling place. And yet, *My house*, the Lord says, *shall be called a house of prayer* [Matth. xxi, 13]. And again, Christ said, *Do not make the house of my Father a house of merchandise* [Joan. ii, 16], when speaking of the temple made by hands in Jerusalem. But if that temple in Jerusalem was a house of God, how much more is this one, which is in the queen of cities, and, to speak briefly, all the temples that are in every place consecrated to God, and to the Mother of God, and to all the saints, are divine and holy, and are places that drive out demons. ^D For where divine grace dwells, from there every evil spirit and every power of the demons is expelled.

19. They call by the name of prayer only the one delivered by the Lord in the Gospels, that is, the "Our Father," and the rest that follows. And this alone they pray seven times during the day, and five times during the night. And as often as they stand to pray, they say the

^A prayer, some of them ten times with genuflections, others fifteen, and others more or less. But they despise all other prayers, calling them "vain repetitions," and applying to them that "vain repetition" mentioned in the Gospels as belonging to the pagan party, not knowing that the evangelical word understands by "vain repetition" not simply many words, but the asking for things that are not proper. For the Lord delivered to the apostles the "Our Father" as a root and form of prayer, not to restrict prayer to this alone, but so that, receiving from it the starting points, they might be able to make others as well, as prayer increases. Since He did not even command them to fast at the beginning, nor did He allow them to be harshly treated, as after His ascension into heaven and restoration they would be. Therefore He said: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then they shall fast.

20. The leader of their heresy claimed that this word of the Lord was written in their Gospels, saying: Worship the demons, not that they may benefit you, but that they may not harm you. And in explaining such a phrase he would add that it is necessary to honor the demons who dwell in man-made temples, by worshipping them, so that they, being angered, might not destroy those who do not do this, as they have great and invincible power to harm, against which even Christ is not sufficient, nor the Holy Spirit with Him, since the Father still spares them and does not remove their strength, but ^B has granted them dominion over the whole world until the consummation of the age. For neither, when the Son was sent into the world, could He obtain their total destruction from the Father, because of the goodness of the Father. But since they have learned this nonsense from the heresy of the Messalians, look in the title which is written against them for the fifth chapter and the eight that follow, and you will find arguments for refuting them most aptly. This has also been spoken of above in the twelfth chapter of the present title. But since they say that the demons are stronger than Christ and the Holy Spirit, of what punishment would they not be worthy—these fighters against God, these blasphemers, these worshippers and servants of demons, who are truly possessed by demons and are friends of demons?

21. They also claim this word of the Lord: Consult in every way for your safety; that is, by every art and deceit simulating the faith of those who oppress you, save yourselves from the danger and death that threatens you from them. ^C For this is also what that [passage] looks to: "All things whatsoever they bid you, do," perform them with simulation, of course, "but do not after their works," in truth. For [they say] that the Lord Himself also spoke openly to the disciples, but to the unbelievers in parables, so that the unbelievers, beholding the appearance of the simulation, might not see that which is hidden in our hearts, and hearing might not hear. Calling the deception and the hypocrisy a parable. But I... ^D

taking the book of the Gospels of him who taught these things into my hands, and having investigated it accurately, found neither the word previously declared, nor the present one; but the four Gospels were such as those among us, possessing nothing distorted, and I reported this to him regarding this matter. And he, having become gloomy and pained, as one convicted, confessed that he himself had never even encountered these two words, although he often read the Gospel. “But when,” he says, “I bought the present book of the Gospels, I met an old man in a certain desert place, and having called me by name, he said to me that I had bought a great treasure. For this book alone, having escaped the hands of John Chrysostom—for so the impure-mouthed ones call that golden mouth—contained the aforementioned two words, which had been cast out from the other Gospels.” But I, having believed his words, preach these also, as being written in my book of the Gospels. He indeed made such an ^A apology, but I understood quickly that it was Satan who had been acting the part of that false-elder.

21. They say that all of their own people, in whom dwells the Holy Spirit, are and are called Theotokoi, since they themselves also conceive the Word of God and carry Him in the womb, and also bring Him forth while they teach others. And they say that the first Theotokos has nothing more than they themselves possess. And they do not even have enough intelligence to know the difference between the Word existing in His own person and a word merely spoken by the mouth, so that we might pass over the terrible and paradoxical mysteries which are ^C proper to the Theotokos.

They say that such people do not die, but are translated, just as in sleep, painlessly stripping off this clay and fleshly covering, and putting on the immortal and divine robe of Christ, and becoming of the same body and the same form as He, being translated through the escort of angels and apostles into the kingdom of the Father, while the body that they have stripped off is dissolved into ash and dust, no longer rising again in any way. But that death is not painless for them as in sleep and the stripping off of a covering, the leader of their heresy showed, who was subjected to many pains after the sentence was given ^D against him that he should be burned by fire, and being exhausted by fear, and having received fatal wounds in his heart, when the drama was stripped away, he was recognized as an impostor ⁎ having put off the actor's habit, and the mysteries of his faith having been publicly exposed and handed over in writing for a triumph, and his disciples, and especially his relatives, and those who were otherwise more genuinely ensnared, having been shut up in prisons, and all help having perished for him from every side, and his hopes having become vain. For when he saw the disciples, as has been said, and his relatives so pitifully affected contrary to every expectation,

^A he gave way, for he had supposed up to the very last day that all would be well, according to the emperor's promise. And being accused by them of treachery, he let loose fountains of bitter tears and sent forth deep groans, signifying the flame within his heart; and, struck by his misfortunes as if by a whirlwind, he would faint, and then, recovering, would be cast down again, unable to stand, until he was lifted up by those ordered to lead him away. Being carried, he was led to the pyre, and as his voice failed him and he labored with constant gasping for breath, he was cast into the flame and became a burnt offering to the demon whom he had worshiped. He himself indeed departed to the place of darkness and other evils prepared for him; but the body of this thrice-wretched old man will certainly rise again on the day of the general resurrection according to the decree of the Savior, who said that men would rise again and that those who have done evil would go into eternal punishment—even though this man denied that there would be a resurrection of the dead, rejecting as false the many testimonies and noble proofs of the Apostle concerning it.

^B 23. They say that they not only see in dreams, but often in waking reality, the Father as an old man with a deep beard, the Son as a youth in the bloom of life, and the Holy Spirit as a beardless adolescent; for the demons easily change themselves into these forms, deceiving them and teaching them that the holy Trinity is unequal and discrepant, and sowing among them the Arian schism of the one nature.

^C 24. They dress themselves like monks, and put on their habit as a bait, hiding the wolf under the sheep's clothing, so that by this habit they may more easily obtain approach and the opportunity for conversation, and without suspicion cast poison into the ears of their hearers through their benign talk.

25. They command fasting for every week on the second day, the fourth day, and the preparation day, until the ninth hour. But if anyone invites them to a feast, immediately forgetting their commandment, they eat and drink like elephants. From this it is clear that they live licentiously, even though in words they condemn fornication and all other lust, as if they were devoid of flesh and body.

^D 26. In the beginning, they teach the initiates simply, exhorting them to believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to know that Christ took on flesh and gave the sacred Gospel to the holy apostles; and they suggest that they should keep the evangelical commandments, pray, fast, purify themselves from all impurity, be destitute of possessions, long-suffering, humble, studious of the truth, and of mutual benevolence. In short, they enjoin all good things and lure them with useful doctrine, and little by little they hunt them and draw them to destruction. For as time progresses, they sow tares among the wheat. And when they have made the wretched ones submissive and obedient, and have them within their nets, then they prepare the potion of poison.

...poison, then indeed they mix the bowl of poison, blaspheming openly and initiating them into the mysteries of the devil.

^B 27. They misinterpret all the aforesaid seven books, twisting their words and turning them away from the correct meaning, and transferring them to what pleases themselves. And whatever is said in them against sinners, and the impious, and idolaters, these they attribute to the faithful of our communion; but whatever is said about those who are pleasing to God, they draw to themselves, and contend with confidence that they themselves are the elect, and the righteous, and the heirs of God. Therefore it would be a long, foolish, and useless labor if one were to wish to refute the perverse expositions of each of the books, which they bring forward while straying from the purpose. For I fear lest those who read, progressing a little, might be so offended by the inept blasphemies of these people, that filled with dizziness and darkness, like those who are sick at sea, they might immediately cast aside what we write about them, and despise and reject it, and accuse us of laboring importunately. But lest we seem to be inventing an apology and fleeing from the labor, we shall briefly touch upon a few of their sayings regarding the Gospel of Matthew, which will indicate the whole jar by a taste, the fountain by a rill, and the garment by the edge. And we shall not endeavor to refute them, since they refute themselves. Nor do we recount them now in order to refute them, but in order to show from them how inept and absurd is their interpretation of those books which they approve.

^C 28. They call their synagogue Bethlehem. For they say that Christ, or the Word of God who preaches the truth of the faith, is born within them. But they interpret the Church of our communion as Herod, who attempts to kill the Word of truth born among them. And again, they call themselves the Magi, in which matter alone they speak the truth. For they are truly wicked conjurers and impostors. Again, they call our Church Jerusalem, and the law of Moses they call the star. For they say that by it they were led as far as the faith of our communion, and then from its priests, and scribes, and doctors, they say they learned that Christ is born in the aforementioned Bethlehem. For it is from us that their first teachers have come forth.

^D 29. They fabulate that Rachel was a certain widow who had two daughters of tender age. When Herod was gathering the male infants, thinking that she would gain honor and favor from him, she disguised them as males and brought them forward as sons. But since they also were killed along with the others as if they were males, while the other mothers were weeping simply, Rachel wept inconsolably because, having hastened to deceive, she was deceived even more, and had foolishly lost her daughters. And interpreting the story allegorically, they say that Rachel is the heavenly Father, and his children are the soul of Adam and the soul of Christ, both of whom being slain by Herod, mark...

^A that is to say, the prince of this world, the Father laments the death of them inconsolably, and admits no consolation.

30. And John himself, he says, had his garment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey. These are the words of the Evangelist. Let us consider what those thunderstruck, mad, and trifling fellows say about these things. They say the camel’s hair represents the precepts of the Mosaic law. For they say that this also is impure, like the camel, since it permits to its subjects the eating of meat, marriages, oaths, sacrifices, and slaughters, and many other such things. They interpret the leathern girdle as the holy Gospel, as being written upon skins of sheep. And again, they call the exhortations of the Mosaic law locusts, which are unable to judge what things are right, nor to perceive what is better. They call the Gospel wild honey, for it appears as honey to those by whom it is received—for, he says, "How sweet are thy words to my throat, more than honey to my mouth"—but wild to those who do not receive it, because of the bitterness of the narrow gate and the constricted way which it shows. For the Forerunner was ^B to be a medium between the old law and the new, and to have been a participant of both: of the former first, and of the latter afterwards.

31. They say that the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to the baptism of John are the believers like us. O the shamelessness! Then, with ignominy, they call us a brood of vipers, that is, seeds of the serpent which, as they themselves say, cohabited with Eve. They admonish us not to be vexed that we are truly named thus by John the Baptist.

32. They say that the sandals of Christ are the manifestations of the miracles which he showed to the disciples and to the crowds, which John could not wear, inasmuch as he was in no way able to show such miracles himself. But they call the winnowing-fan of Christ the evangelical discourse, as having proceeded from his mouth; and the threshing-floor, the Christians, in whom there are various and diverse people, some thinking rightly and some the contrary; they call their own faith the wheat, as being pure and nourishing, but our faith the chaff, as useless and worthy of fire. What pious ear could endure the impiety of these curses? ^C My soul is sick at their absurdities, and my senses are disturbed, as the prophet says, and I would wish to put an end to the discourse, and not to proceed further, nor to bring to light and commit to memory things which are deserving of darkness and oblivion. Yet one must proceed a little further and endure for a while the babbling of these endless talkers, who are both deranged and abominable.

33. They say that the high mountain is the second heaven, unto which Christ was raised up by the devil, and saw all the kingdoms of the world. And they say that the devil would not have ascended to that second ^D heaven, if—

he had not acknowledged that this was his own work. Nor, they say, would he have told Him that all the kingdoms would be given to Him, if he had not possessed their dominion, as of things which had been made by him, as has been declared before.

34. And leaving, he says, Jesus Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum. They call ^A us Nazareth, but themselves Capernaum. And now they say that Christ has left our Church and dwells with them.

35. They maintain that Christ spoke all the Beatitudes only concerning the believers according to them, that is, concerning the Bogomils. For they assert that they are such as are poor in spirit, and mourning, and hungering, and thirsting for righteousness, and the rest. And also that these are called the salt of the earth, and the light of the world, and whatsoever the Lord has said concerning the apostles.

36. One iota, he says, or one apex shall by no means pass from the law, until all things come to pass. By the iota they understand the Decalogue of the Law, and by the apex, that same law again. For if one straightens the apex lying transversely, it constitutes an iota. Then they interpret it, saying that the Decalogue of the Law shall not pass away, but will remain preserved among the Hebrews, ^B until heaven and earth pass away. For I did not come, he says, to destroy the law of Moses, but to fill the heaven which long ago remained empty of the angels who dwelt in it, and to fulfill the ranks of the powers which fell.

37. Unless, he says, your righteousness shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. They call us Scribes and Pharisees, as being those who are devoted to the study of letters and who boast in them; but they say that their righteousness exceeds ours in teaching things that are more true and more adapted for establishing a life that is righteous and pure, since they abstain from eating meat, and cheese, and eggs, and from marriage, and things of that sort.

38. Know, he says, that you are well-disposed toward your adversary. They ^C say that the adversary of men is the devil, and they interpret it insanely, saying that it is necessary to be well-disposed toward him, and to worship him through adoration, as we have related above, so that he may not, after tripping and casting down the disobedient, hand them over to the judge and to God, on the day of judgment, to suffer the punishments for the tripping.

39. Since the statement, Whoever shall divorce his wife except for the cause of fornication, and the rest of the text, is contrary to and opposes their doctrine concerning not being yoked to a woman, they say that these are words arcane to all and inexplicable, and known only to those who have put off the flesh. And confirming the doctrine of celibacy, they bring forward the word of the Lord, who said, ^D In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, insanely interpreting the resurrection as repentance and the evangelical life.

^A 40. Nor by Jerusalem, he says, shall you swear, because it is the city of the great king. They say that the great king now is the devil, as the prince of this world. May you be propitious to us, O Lord, as we recount the blasphemies of these people.

41. Hear, he says, that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. By "eyes" they claim are meant the two laws, the Mosaic and the evangelical; and by "teeth" the two ways, the broad and the narrow. For Christ came, they say, to give a law in place of a law, namely, the evangelical in place of the Mosaic; and a way in place of a way, namely, the narrow in place of the broad. O the broad ignorance of these unlearned men!

^B 42. But you, when you pray, he says, enter into your closet. By "closet" they understand the mind, and moved by this saying, they teach that no one should pray in the churches, even though they hear the prophet David clearly commanding us to bless God in the churches.

43. Look, he says, at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap, and what follows. By "birds of the air" they mean the monks who live on pillars, who, while leading an idle life, are fed in vain by the heavenly Father. And by "lilies of the field" they call themselves, as being white in the purity of the soul and fiery-breathed in virtues, to none of whom could Solomon be compared, who had a sullied garment of the soul.

44. Do not give, he says, what is holy to the dogs, nor ^C cast your pearls before swine. By "what is holy" they mean the simpler faith which they themselves profess; but by "pearls" the more recondite and precise doctrines of their error. And by "dogs" and "swine" (O the incredible insult!) they mean those who among us are pious, labeling them as idolaters. For I shudder to relate the rest of their secrets. Then they add that they accept those who come to them as dogs and swine. And first they purify them through fasts and prayers, then they baptize them, as we have demonstrated. After they have progressed little by little and become more perfect, they then entrust to them the holy things and the pearls.

45. Beware, he says, of false prophets. By "false prophets," O the absurdity! they mean the great Basil in his dogmas, Gregory the splendor of theology, and John the golden-tongued, because they taught ^D from their own authority. I pass over the other ravings of these men—men who are worthy of thunderbolt, and heavenly fire, and flame—which they utter against these saints more than against others.

46. Many, he says, will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons? And then I will confess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you who work iniquity. These words they interpret-

^A as referring to our holy hierarchs and divine Fathers, those who were deemed worthy of the prophetic gift, and cast out demons, and performed many other miracles. For they contend that all these things were done by the demons dwelling within them, so as to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant. Yet a demon does not cast out a demon, as the Truth itself, Christ, testifies. Most rabid dog, the poison of asps is under your lips.

47. They call themselves a wise man, one who has built his house upon the rock of the prayer of the *Our Father*; but they call us a fool, one who has built his house upon the sand of other prayers, which are indeed many, but weak and foolish, as it seems to these foolish people.

48. *And there came*, he says, *a scribe and said to him, Master, I will follow you wherever you go. And Jesus says to him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head* [Matt. VIII, 19, 20]. By "scribe" they mean every learned man, and they urge one another not to receive the learned into their company for instruction, in imitation, as it is said, of Christ, who did not receive the scribe. By "foxes" they understand the monks, who are shut up in narrow little dwellings as if in some dens. By "birds of the air" they consider those who live life on columns, as has been said above, among whom Christ does not dwell at all, being unworthy of his presence. Truly, the throat of these wicked men is an open sepulchre, ^B sending forth a great stench, and pouring forth corruption through their God-opposing mouth.

49. They interpret the two demoniacs coming out of the graves as two orders, namely, that of the monks and that of the clergy. For constantly to spend time in temples made by hand, which these people call graves, in which the bones of the dead are stored—for thus the impious call the relics of the saints. These two orders, moreover, are very much to be feared by the Bogomils, so that none of them has the power to pass along that road. And the herd of many swine feeding, they claim, are the common, ignorant, and swinish people, into whom they enter—[these demons]—and teach them, and cast them down, and suffocate them in the sea of sin.

50. They call their own doctrine "new wine," and the "old wineskins" those who do not accept it, but "new wineskins" those who receive it and keep it within themselves.

51. By the woman who had suffered from a flow of blood for twelve years ^C they understand the Church in Jerusalem, suffering the flow of the blood of victims in the twelve tribes of Israel. For they say that Christ caused this flow to cease, having shortly thereafter destroyed Jerusalem. But how could the twelve tribes be understood by twelve years, for a year is a movement of time and

a tribe is a race of men? Yet how great is the distinction between man and time! ^A Since I am straining with great anxiety even to trace out the distinction between man and time, as I am eager to cleanse everything from the tares of impiety, ^B 52. Hear an even more ridiculous interpretation, and from this learn the nonsense of these old wives' tales, who are no better than those who are drunk. For they interpret "Jesus rebuked them, saying" as if it meant "Jesus threw a word at them." Do I not appear to be insane myself, pretending as I do to relate the ravings of the insane? I am ashamed, believe me, and I speak of such things only with reluctance. For this reason, I skipped over most of it on purpose, and only scattered the things I have written down here and there. Those who read this ought to recognize, from these few examples, what the rest of this same "pottery," as they say, is like. For we have opened up a vast sea of impiety, which would require many days' journey to cross, yet we have only moved a little way from the land. And I feel that you are nauseated; indeed, I felt it before you did. And it seems better to me that we should furl the sails of our discourse, and, holding back, head for the harbor of silence—all the more so because that wicked and garrulous tongue has fallen silent, and the impious lips of the one who devised such trifles have been suppressed, and the mouth of those who speak iniquities has been stopped. ^C For when our most wise and magnanimous Emperor had him summoned, and through his own words laid bare the pretense of his fables, and found him to be nothing but "sounding brass" and a deceiver, since at one moment he would pretend to repent and the next, like a dog, return to his own vomit—having considered the matter and gathered together all the officials, both ecclesiastical and civil, he passed the sentence that he who had sent many into the fire of Gehenna should himself suffer the punishment by fire. And now he has departed, burnt by fire, having carried away a wicked shroud in his impiety. Who, however, could bewail him as his merits deserve, in a manner equal to his sorrows, when he learned the dogmas of his error in fifteen years, taught them for more than forty, pushed countless disciples into the pit of destruction, and at the last did not depart from them in a holy manner, but being excluded from both lives, thus obtained both fires—having departed from the extinguished fire to the one that is not extinguished? Nevertheless, one must be confident regarding those who remain. ^D For the head of the dragon has already been crushed; its most vital parts and members have been removed, while the others will meet a similar end either quickly or shortly hereafter. But we are in good hope that not even the tail will escape the diligent and careful search of the Emperor, who with great zeal and by every means hunts for them all, so as to catch them in his nets, in order that the wheat of piety may be shown to be purged of tares.

TITLE XXVIII

Against the Saracens, who are called Ishmaelites, because they trace their origin from Ishmael. Now he was...

δὲ ἦν οὗτος τοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ, γεννηθεὶς αὐτῷ ἐξ ^A ᾿Αγαρ τῆς παιδίσκης Σάρρας. Ἀγαρηνοὶ δὲ, ἀπὸ ᾿Αγαρ τῆς μητρὸς Ἰσμαήλ· Σαρακηνοὶ δὲ, ἀπὸ τοῦ τὴν ᾿Αγαρ εἰπεῖν πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον, ὅτι ἀπελαθεῖσα παρὰ τῆς κυρίας αὐτῆς, ὧδευε κατὰ τὴν ἔρημον ἐπιφερομένη τὸν Ἰσμαήλ, ὅτι Σάρρα κενήν με ἀπέλυσεν, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν.

α΄. Οἱ Σαρακηνοὶ μέχρι μὲν τῶν Ἡρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως χρόνων εἰδωλολάτρουν, προσκυνοῦντες τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ ἄστρῳ, καὶ τῇ ᾿Αφροδίτῃ, ἣν δὴ καὶ Χαβὰρ τῇ ἑαυτῶν ἐπονομάζουσι γλώττῃ· δηλοῖ δὲ ἡ λέξις αὕτη τὴν μεγάλην· τότε δὲ ψευδοπροφήτης αὐτοῖς ἀνέστη Μωάμεθ, ὁ ταῖς βλασφημίαις μέγας καὶ περιβόητος. Οὗτος, ἀπὸ μιᾶς τῶν ἐξ Ἰσμαὴλ φυλῶν καταγόμενος, καὶ κομιδῇ νέος ὀρφανισθείς, ἐθήτευε παρὰ γυναικὶ χήρᾳ, κατὰ γένος αὐτῷ προσηκούσῃ. Τὴν παιδικὴν δὲ παραμειψάμενος ἡλικίαν, ὑπέδυ ταύτην, ^B καὶ συνεγένετο, καὶ φανερῶς αὐτὴν ἔλαβεν εἰς γυναῖκα. Γενόμενος δὲ κύριος τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῇ, πολλάκις καὶ ἀπεδήμει κατ' ἐμπορίαν. Καί ποτε παραγενόμενος εἰς Παλαιστίνην, συνέτυχεν Ἑβραίοις · εἶτα καὶ Ἀρειανοῖς · Ἔπειτα καὶ Νεστοριανοῖς· καὶ δόξας φιλομαθής, ἠρύσατο ταχέως ἐξ Ἑβραίων μὲν μοναρχίαν, ἐξ Ἀρειανῶν δὲ Λόγον καὶ Πνεῦμα κτιστά· ἀπὸ δὲ Νεστοριανῶν ἀνθρωπολατρείαν· καὶ σύνθετος ἐξ αὐτῶν θρησκείαν ἑαυτῷ συνεστήσατο. Νοσήσαντος δέ ποτε παρέσει μελῶν, ἡ δηλωθεῖσα τούτου γυνὴ σφόδρα ἠνιᾶτο καὶ ἤσχαλλεν, οὐ μόνον ὡς πένητι συναφθεῖσα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς παραλυτικὴν ἔχουσα τὸν γημάμενον. Ἦν δὲ ^C αὐτοῖς φίλος μοναχός τις αἱρετικός, ἐξόριστος εἰς ἐκεῖνα τὰ μέρη διὰ κακοπιστίαν γενόμενος. Οὗτος ἐξ ὑποθήκης τοῦ Μωάμεθ ἐπληροφόρησε τὴν τούτου σύζυγον, ὡς οὐκ ἔστι κοινὴ νόσος ἡ κατέχουσα τοῦτον· ἀλλ' ὁσάκις ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν ἀρχάγγελον Γαβριήλ, μὴ φέρων αὐτοῦ τὴν φοβερὰν ἐπιφάνειαν, εἰς τοῦτο καταπίπτει τὸ πάθος. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ δηλωθεὶς ἄγγελος εἰς τοὺς μεγάλους ἀποστέλλεται προφήτας, ἀποκαλύπτων αὐτοῖς τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γνῶσιν τῶν ἐσομένων. Ἀποστέλλεται δὲ, φησί, καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σαυτῆς, ὡς μέγιστον προφήτην. Αὕτη δὲ, πεισθεῖσα τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ γενομένη περιχαρής, ἐκήρυττε διαῤῥήδην ταῖς ἄλλαις γυναιξίν, ὅτι μέγας ἐστὶ προφήτης Μωάμεθ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς. Καὶ τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐκ γυναικῶν εἰς ἄνδρας ὁ λόγος οὗτος διαδοθεὶς ἐκράτησε, καὶ κατέστη βέβαιος. Καὶ λοιπὸν ἤρξατο διδάσκειν ὁ πλάνος ἐκεῖνος, καὶ τὴν τῶν δογμάτων αὐτοῦ νόσον διασπείρειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνοήτους.

^D β΄. Οὗτος διεθρύλλησε γραφὴν οὐρανόθεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν κοιμώμενον καταπεσεῖν, ἔχουσαν τοιαύτην θεολογίαν: Ὅτι τε εἷς Θεός ἐστι, ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων,

ὅλων, μήτε γεννηθείς, μήτε γεννήσας· καὶ ὅτι ὁ λόγος ^B τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ, κτιστὰ ὄντα, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Μαρίαν τὴν ἀδελφὴν Μωσέως καὶ Ἀαρών, καὶ ἐγέννησεν αὐτὴ δίχα σπέρματος Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν· προφήτην καὶ δοῦλον γεγονότα τοῦ Θεοῦ· καὶ ὅτι οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι φθονήσαντες ἠθέλησαν αὐτὸν σταυρῶσαι· καὶ κρατήσαντες, ἐσταύρωσαν τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐσταυρώθη, οὐδὲ ἀπέθανεν· ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἔλαβεν αὐτὸν πρὸς ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, διὰ τὸ φιλεῖν αὐτόν· καὶ ὅτι ἀνελθόντα τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, ἐρώτησεν ὁ Θεὸς, λέγων· Ὦ Ἰησοῦ, σύ, εἶπε, τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ὅτι Υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ Θεός; Καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Οὐκ εἶπον ἐγώ· οὐδὲ αἰσχύνομαι εἶναι δοῦλός σου. Ἀλλ' οἱ ἄνθρωποι λέγουσι, ὅτι εἶπον τὸν λόγον τοῦτον. Καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τερατολογῶν ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ γραφῇ γέλωτος ἄξια, ταύτην ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐπ' αὐτὸν κατενεχθῆναι φρυάττεται.

γ΄. Ἡμεῖς δὲ πρὸς τὸν μαθητὴν αὐτοῦ λέγομεν ὅτι Περὶ μὲν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πάντες οἱ προφῆται προκατήγγειλαν, καὶ πρὸ τούτων Μωσῆς, ὅτι Θεοῦ Υἱὸς ὢν καὶ Θεὸς, ἐπ' ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐνανθρωπήσει· καὶ τελέσας τὴν ἔνσαρκον οἰκονομίαν αὐτοῦ, σταυρωθήσεται καὶ ταφήσεται, καὶ ἀναστήσεται, καὶ εἰς οὐρανὸν ἀναληφθήσεται· καὶ τελευταῖον ἥξει κριτὴς πάντων, ἀποδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. Τούτους δὲ τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὡς λέγετε, δέχεσθε. Περὶ δὲ τοῦ Μωάμεθ τούτων οὐδεὶς προεφήτευσεν, ὅτι τοιοῦτον προφήτην ἀναστήσει τοῖς Σαρακηνοῖς ὁ Θεός. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Μωσῆς, τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Σινᾶ φοβεροῦ γεγονότος ἐν νεφέλῃ, καὶ πυρὶ, καὶ γνόφῳ, καὶ θυέλλῃ, καὶ τοιαύταις ἄλλαις φρικταῖς καταπλήξεσιν, ὁρῶντος τοῦ λαοῦ παντός, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν γνόφον, καὶ τὸν νόμον ἐκομίσατο· ὁ δὲ Μωάμεθ, ποίων θεοσημείων προηγησαμένων, ἢ τίνων ὁρώντων, ἐδέξατο τὴν θεόπεμπτον ταύτην, ὡς ἔλεγε, γραφήν; Καὶ οὗτοι ἐξαπορούμενοι ἀποκρίνονται, ὅτι ὁ Θεός, ὅσα θέλει, καὶ ὡς θέλει, ποιεῖ. Εἶτα πάλιν ἡμεῖς· Ἀλλὰ πῶς κατῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν προφήτην ὑμῶν ἡ γραφή; Καὶ λέγουσιν, ὅτι κοιμωμένου ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ' αὐτόν. Καὶ αὖθις ἡμεῖς, Καὶ πόθεν δῆλον, ὅτι θεόθεν ἔπεσεν ἐπ' αὐτόν; Εἰκὸς γὰρ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὴν γράψαντα ριψαι ἐπ' αὐτόν· ἢ καὶ αὐτὸν ταύτην πλασάμενον κηρύττειν ὅτι θεόθεν ἔπεσεν ἐπ' αὐτόν. Μηδὲν δὲ καίριον προσαπολογεῖσθαι δυναμένων, λέγομεν ὅτι Ὥσπερ ὁ κοιμώμενος παραφθέγγεται, καὶ ἀλλοκότους ὀνείρους βλέπει πολλάκις, οὕτω καὶ τὰ τῆς γραφῆς, ἥτις ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἐρρίφη κοιμώμενον, παραφορά, καὶ ὀνειρωδικώτατον τὸ ψεῦδος. ^C Ἐρωτώντων δὲ πάλιν ἡμῶν, Πῶς, τοῦ Μωάμεθ ὑμῖν ἐντειλαμένου μηδὲν ἄνευ μαρτυρίας ἢ ποιεῖν ἢ παραδέχεσθαι, οὐκ ἀπῃτήσατε αὐτὸν μαρτυρίαν, ὅτι τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν προφήτην ἐχειροτόνησε, καὶ ὅτι θεόθεν ἐδέξατο τὴν εἰρημένην θεολογίαν; Σιωπῶσιν αἰδούμενοι. Καὶ αὖθις ἡμεῖς· Ὦ τῆς ἀτοπίας! γυναίκας μὲν καὶ δούλους, καὶ χρήματα καὶ κτήματα, καὶ ὄνους καὶ κύνας, τὸ εὐτελέστατον, χωρὶς μαρτυρίας οὐκ ἔχετε· μόνην δὲ πίστιν καὶ γραφὴν οὕτως ἀμάρτυρον ἔχετε;

ἔχετε; ^D 4. But since you call Jesus Christ the Word of God, and His Spirit, you admit, whether you wish to or not, that the Word of God and His Spirit are in God. For the Word of God and His Spirit cannot be separated from Him whose they are, lest He be left without word and without breath. If, therefore, His Word is in God, it is manifest that it is also God. And consequently, Christ, as the Word of God, is God; but as one born of the Virgin, He is man. And thus it is necessary to confess Him to be twofold, both God and man, recognized in two natures, that of divinity and that of humanity. But these men again thoughtlessly have recourse to that supposedly God-sent writing. It is necessary, however, to lead them back to the truth by way of syllogism. God, being perfect, is not without speech [or "without a Word"]. And having a Word, He does not have it as something without subsistence, nor as something that began to be, nor as something that will cease; for He was never at any time without a Word, but, being always, He has His own Word, begotten from Him, and remaining in Him, living and perfect, and not like our human word. For where the being [essence] is different, the word is also different. And just as our word comes to be from the mind and is understood, and is neither entirely the same as the mind, nor entirely different (for being from the mind, it is something other than it; yet as it manifests the mind itself, it is not entirely other than it; but while they are one in nature, they differ in the subject), so too the Word of God, who is the Son, is distinguished from Him from whom He has His generation in that He subsists in Himself; but in that He demonstrates in Himself those things which are contemplated in God, He is one with Him in nature. The Word must also have the Spirit accompanying Him and manifesting His operation. For indeed, our own word is not devoid of spirit, which at the time of utterance becomes the voice of our word, manifesting its power. But in our case this spirit is foreign to our essence, being an influx and efflux of air; whereas in God, just as the Word is not as with us, but subsists essentially, and is of the same essence and nature as the Begetter, so too is the Holy Spirit, existing essentially and of the same essence, nature, and perfection as God, proceeding from the Father, being in Him, and accompanying the Word and Son, and being the manifestation of Him. Concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that they are, and that they are of the same nature, it has been sufficiently demonstrated by us.

5. Concerning the Mother of the God who became man

For from the time that Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, went out of Egypt with her brothers, a period of two thousand years elapsed until the birth of the Lord according to the flesh. ^A And this Miriam did not exceed the measure of the life of the women who were living at that time. It is therefore evident that this is a lie, a clumsy fabrication, and contrary to history. And how could David, an ancestor of Christ, be reckoned according to his human nature, having been born, raised, and fathered children many years after the death of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron?

6. How, then, can the writing that babbles such things and lies so greatly be sent by God? For if Christ were the son of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, he ought, ^B when he stood to be judged before Pontius Pilate, to have been in his extreme old age, and like a relic of a man, consumed little by little and gradually by the great length of the years that had passed in the meantime. That it was not the shadow of Christ, but Christ himself who was crucified according to the flesh, is declared by the blood that flowed from his most holy body, which is still preserved among the Christians, and pours forth like a fountain with healings, and is attested by many miracles as being Christ's. And the prophets also clearly predicted his crucifixion and the sufferings that preceded it; so that we may omit the proofs from the other parts of Scripture, which the Agarenes neither know, nor, indeed, admit.

7. And as for the claim that God was ignorant of whether Christ taught men that he himself is God—and for this reason asked him, and received his denial as if it were his apology and defense—is this not worthy of all condemnation? For how is he God if he is ignorant of what happens? And how did Christ, who named himself Truth in the Gospel, say something false to God by denying the truth, even though he is God, as has been demonstrated before?

8. They slander us as idolaters, because we worship the cross, which they also abhor. ^C And we say to them: How is it then that you cling to the stone of Brachthan and kiss it? And some of them say: Because Abraham had intercourse with Hagar upon it; others say, because he tied his camel to it when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. To whom we again say: Then are you not ashamed to worship and honor a stone upon which Abraham had intercourse with a woman, or to which he tied a camel, while you reproach us for worshipping the cross, through which the power of demons and every deception of the devil are weakened and broken? ^D Moreover, the aforementioned stone is the head of Venus, which the Ishmaelites once worshipped; for to this day the stone bears, for those who look closely, an imprint of a head formed by a chisel. It is the idol called Baccha Ismakech, which he himself calls an object of "observational" worship, and commanded the miserable barbarians to worship. And two barbarian names,

namely Tzitzapha and Marua, he teaches to be of the singular religion of honoring God; but of God entirely his own and peculiar. Furthermore, he commands those miserable ones who were deceived by him, when they arrive at that detestable dwelling place designated for prayers, to be present and to circle it in a ring; and (as I understood from a certain one of his disciples who defected to the side of the Christians) a certain stone statue is erected in the middle of the dwelling; and those who perform the action of this demonic command, with their miserable necks bowed, one hand raised upwards toward it, and holding [their ear] with the other, circle around it until, seized by dizziness, they collapse. Behold how clearly he legislated for idolatry.

IX. ^B This Muhammad, although he was unlearned and boorish, wrote one hundred and thirteen fables, and gave to each of these a name worthy of his own lack of education and babbling. To recount the impurity and manifest nonsense of all of them, and to refute them, what would it be but to cleanse the Augean stable of dung, like Hercules? It will remain, therefore, passing over the others, to make mention of a few, those which are of greater moment and are necessary for the right recognition and condemnation of that detestable sect.

He calls God "hollow-spherical" (olosphyron), or spherical. But this is the shape of a body, and it denotes a body; just as is that which is dense and compressed. Since, therefore, according to him, God is a certain material sphere, he will neither hear nor see; and he will be carried headlong, as it may happen, and will roll about in a chaotic motion.

^C When he ordains God as the author of all evil, just as of all good, he says: "Whom God leads, he is rightfully led; and whom he impels into error, they are those who are deserted." And shortly after, confirming this, he adds: "I am not the master of my soul, neither for salvation nor for destruction, except in so far as God himself wills it." Then, forgetting that shortly before he had proclaimed himself a prophet, he says: "And if I knew things to come, I would surely abound in good things, and evil could not affect me." And how would you escape evils, which, as you yourself teach, exist by nature? If you could escape them, then they are not by nature. But that God is not the author of evils has been demonstrated by us in the title against the Massalians; consult chapter 17.

^D In the eighth of his fables he says: "The Jews say that Israel is the son of God: and the Christians say that Christ is the Son of God: this is the word that has come forth from their own mouth," and what follows. But listen, O son of the father of lies! The Jews do not name Israel the true Son of God, but only to show God’s love and inclination toward them, because of the piety in which their fathers excelled; but the Christians confess Christ as Son of God by nature, and consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity. For if, as you confess, the Gospel was given to Christ by God, as we shall see below...

and if it is written in that same Gospel that God ^A bore witness from heaven three times concerning Christ, saying at one time, "This is my beloved Son," and at another, "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again," and on Mount Tabor, "Listen to him": what is the absurdity or foreignness that Christians commit when they confess Christ to be God and the Son of God, seeing that God himself bears witness to these things with regard to Christ, as the Gospel teaches, which you yourself acknowledge to have been given by God?

When he mentions Christ and the Gospel, he says, speaking in the person of God: "We sent, after all these [that is to say, the other prophets], Jesus the son of Mary, that he might confirm the things that were written in the Law before him; and we sent down the Gospel to him, in which there is guidance, light, and justice, in accordance with the power of the Law that preceded him, for guidance and promise to those who fear him, and to judge the members of the household ^B of the Gospel." If, therefore, Christ came to confirm the things that were predicted about him—that is, the things of the old Law—and delivered the Gospel, guidance, and light, and justice to men, as you yourself confess, and he himself is going to perform the judgment, it remains that you are thrusting upon men nothing other than errors and things that fight diametrically against the doctrine of truth.

Again, speaking as if in the person of God, he proposes: "When we wished to destroy a region, we commanded the men living in it to give themselves over to luxury and intemperance; and this decree regarding their destruction became true concerning them, along with the divine oracle, and thus we truly mastered them, and we destroyed many from the generations after Noah." To whom do these words better apply: to the God who is the lover of mankind, or to the demon who pursues men with the greatest hatred? Does God command men to live intemperately, or the devil? But he who commands one to live intemperately, he is the author of intemperance and luxury, and is thus worthy of greater punishment.

Moses ^C indeed committed to writing that "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, took wives for themselves," calling the descendants of Seth "sons of God"—for that is how he seemed to be named on account of his imitation of God, his virtuous pursuit, and his religious life—while he called those "daughters of men" who were begotten by Cain or derived their lineage from him. But Muhammad said the opposite; and for the sons of God he named female angels, as is the case in the fables of the Greeks: "Then Iris came as a messenger to fair-armed Helen." But in place of the daughters of men, he inserted the sons of men. And what is most pitiful of all is that he proclaims that this was done by God, when he says: "Our Lord chose daughters, and he took females from the angels." But you announce certain difficult and great things—that is, you publish that God has ^D children; nay, rather...

^A he has given to the sons of men female angels as wives, from whom the giants were born. Now, he affirms by oath in the sixteenth fable that female angels are not the daughters of God, and he curses him who thinks otherwise; but he insists and asserts strongly that angels are female. Yet, even if it were granted—which is impossible—that a man could have relations with a female angel and deposit semen in her, into what womb would an immaterial spirit contain and vivify bodily semen? With what suitable substance would she nourish it? How would she carry the infant before birth? Finally, how would she nurse with milk a being that is accustomed to drawing in nutritious humors, she who is a nature devoid of matter and blood? Therefore, an angel is not female at all: for male and female are properties of bodies.

^B 10. He introduces God swearing by such an oath: "By the phulca of the phulcas, and the prothismata of the prothismata." And again in another fable: "By the lecmunta of the lecmunta, and those bearing burdens, and those running straight, and those dividing things." And again in another: "By the mountain, and the writing inscribed on thin parchment, and the house built, and the roof raised up, and the sea bound." And in others, other things that are barbaric and foolish, and not lacking in his own trifles and madness. And elsewhere again: "By the pen and what they write out." ^C And again in others he makes an oath: "By those being released in order, and storms of storms, and the spreadings of the spread out, and those traversing space, and those casting forth a defensive opinion." And again in others: "By those being drawn out to a bolt, and those taking away, and those swimming a swim, and those that get there first, and those managing the thing on the day when an earthquake shakes the earth." And again in another: "By the tower-crowned heaven, and the day of composition, and the witness and the witnessed." And again in another: "By heaven and Altarik." And how could you know what Altarik is? "The pierced star," he says. And in another place: "By the brightness and the ten nights, and the junction and the disjunction, ^D and the night when it is spread out." And again in another: "By the figs and the olives of Sinai, and by this land." And in another again: "By those running in baying, and those showing fire-darts, and those falling into the brightness, and those stirring up stagnant water." And elsewhere: "By Alezer." He claims that some of these forms of swearing are his God's, while he uses others himself, wishing in these also to strike the barbarians with fear, and to show himself learned in manifold discipline and deep mysteries; as also when he says: "The inscription in Acca; and how could you know what Acca is?" and many other such things, which are entirely difficult to express and impossible to understand, striking, as it were, the ears of his disciples. Moameth swears, furthermore, by the sun, the moon,

^A the stars, the fiery brilliance, the animals, the running dogs, plants, and other unknown and barbarian terms—which I suppose are of certain harmful and vengeful demons. By using these things in his oaths, he clearly shows that he considers them to be gods; for he who swears is accustomed to swear by what is greater. Therefore, God also, not having anyone greater by whom to swear, swore by Himself, as Scripture has taught. Now, we understand an oath in relation to God as the confirmation of one's promise through the invocation of something.

11. He says that a temple was built for God by both Israel and Abraham; a thing which neither ever existed, nor is mentioned in Scripture. For if the divine Moses did not pass over in silence the anointing of a stone, so that a sacrosanct statue might be erected to God, how would he have kept silent about an entire temple? ^B

12. He ordained that they should pray turned toward the south, so that even in this they might be distinguished from those who pray turned toward the rising of the sun. He orders those who approach for prayer to purify themselves first: with water if it is at hand, but if it is absent, with dust. But this dirties even more; it does not cleanse. And what will a mere cleansing by water accomplish, if the souls of these people are full of every impurity?

He says again, as if from the person of God: "We have given you the scarab: do you therefore pour out prayers to your Lord, and slaughter it." O marvelous and magnificent sacrifice, worthy of such a lawgiver!

13. We have passed over all the things interpolated from the 18th to the 36th fable of Moameth, as they are full of every absurdity ^C and monstrosity, and are overturned and refuted by themselves, insofar as he took them from both the Old and New Testament and corrupted them. For he says that Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron, gave birth to Christ near a palm tree, despairing in her soul because of the birth pangs; and that Christ spoke to her from her womb, and ordered her to shake the palm tree and eat of its fruits. He wrote that David and Solomon conversed with demons and birds, and that demons were present as servants to Solomon, along with certain *gundas*; and that he had dominion over the winds, and discerned the mysteries of the ants; and that a certain wild rooster was a teacher to these. He says also that the iron breastplate was first devised by David. ^D

He proclaims himself a judge along with God, who is to judge the world; and he babbles other things even more irrational and demonic than these.

He translates the sun as being immersed in warm water at the ends of the west, and that, having been washed, it ascends and rises at dawn. But if the sun is fire, and fire and water destroy one another, how does one not consume the other? And what is the need of such a bath for the sun? For the sun is most pure, and far purer than that water itself.

14. He says that the sun and the moon are on horses

^A how, since they are inanimate, can they ride? And how would horses be able to sustain being a vehicle of fire? For every horse is earthly, and can be consumed by fire. But those fiery horses of Elijah only bore the form of horses, while in reality they were angels of God.

15. He says that man is made from a leech. But how, from the most abject, the most precious; from the irrational, the rational; and from what is to be shunned, that which is desirable?

16. From all animals, he sends away only the swine from being eaten; neither dog, nor wolf, nor anything else; but he urges those deceived by him to partake of all things. "For eat," he says, "of the things that are on the earth; for they are pure and good; and do not follow the footprints of Satan." Obviously he calls God Satan, who declared some things to be pure, and others impure. But if this one is Satan, how do you call him God in other places, O vain trifler, and one fighting against yourself? ^B

17. Legislating concerning fasting, he says thus: "It is permitted for you to have intercourse with your wives during the night of the fast. For they are your coverings, and you are coverings to them. For God knew that you would be caught in snares during the fast, and He becomes merciful to you. Mix with them for consolation; eat and drink in the evening, until the blackness of the night appears white through the day; and again complete the fast until the evening, and mix with them, while you are frequenting the place of prayer. This is the law of God." What kind of fast, O impure one, or what kind of law of God is it, to revel and indulge in lust throughout the whole night?

Discussing continence and modesty with his disciples, he says: "Your wives are your dwelling-place. Enter into your dwelling-place from wherever you wish; and come together with your souls," that is, satisfy all the desire of your souls, and use your wives in every way. What is more wanton and filthy than this impurity of yours?

18. He legislated for each of you to take four wives; but a thousand concubines, or however many one might be able to support. And he wills that the concubines be subordinate to the wives; and that whichever one the husband wishes, he may dismiss, and bring in another instead. O incomparable, and swinish or canine intemperance! ^C

Mentioning the divorce between husband and wife, he says these things: "If anyone dismisses his wife, let her be married to another; and thus, if her husband who dismissed her wishes, let her return to him. But it shall not be permitted for her to return to him before she is married to another." An excellent law, which commands adultery, and intends for divorce to be expiated by it!

19. Urging his disciples into the war against us, he says: "Kill them wherever you may encounter them." But for what cause, O

sanguinary one? Is it not clearly so that wise men may refute your impious and foul dogmas?

20. Moreover, he rouses and arms the barbarians in every way so that they may be stained with the blood of Christians, persuading them that a great and abundant reward is laid up with God for those who cruelly overrun them. He also orders the fifth part of the captives and other spoils to be dedicated to God, and to his prophet and apostle, Muhammad; for it was not right that he who was the author of the Christians' destruction should not also be a sharer in their profit; but it was fitting that from a bloody people, bloody first-fruits should be decreed to a bloody prophet.

Yet he commands them to be reconciled if the Christians request it. O inhuman humanity! For if, after a reconciliation has been made, the Christians should move over to the Saracen regions, and afterwards dare to separate themselves from their authority, he wishes war to be waged against them and for them to be slaughtered; but if they embrace that same religion, he receives them into the number of the brethren. ^B

"You shall not compel them," he says, "into the faith. For that which is acceptable was revealed from that which is perilous." That is to say, "Your faith has been shown to be acceptable to God, while other religions have been rejected as perilous." Well done, truly great humanity, that you have commanded Christians not to be compelled! You did not order them to be compelled into the faith, but you ordered them to be killed! Not on account of a foreign faith, but on account of your innate savagery and inhumanity, and so that, if they were to survive, they might not refute your madness and impiety, as has been said before.

He admonishes his own, saying: "Be not associates of either Jews or Christians. For whoever defends them, he is one of them." ^C Be it so: you pursue with hatred those Christians who worship the omnipotent and holy Trinity, and you order them to endure such things; but toward the Jews, who profess to preserve the faith of Abraham, why do you contrive this? But this is not foreign to your malice. For you know that the Law declares the divinity of Christ; and for this reason you command that both be hated, you who are a Christ-fighter, or, rather, a God-fighter.

Then he thus laments for the Jews and Christians, when he says: "Woe to you, O household of the Scriptures! There will be nothing for you, as long as you follow the Law and the Gospel." Truly, there will be no benefit. And yet, a little before, you said that the Law had been fulfilled by Christ, and that the Gospel had been promulgated as the way, the light, and righteousness. ^D But in truth, a lie strangles itself, so that it may be evidently refuted.

He enacted a law for the circumcision of both males and females; he also forbade them wine. To circumcise the males is indeed a Hebraic custom; but [to circumcise] the females is peculiar to the impudence of Muhammad, intended, forsooth, to correct the circumcision prescribed in the Law; and his abstinence from wine is intended so that, should they not become drunk...

^A they might become vulnerable to their enemies, and especially to the Christians.

He concocted a myth that there was a certain camel which was able to drink up entire rivers as they flowed by; and that this creature was of such immense size that it could not even fit between two massive mountains. There was, he says, a people in that place; and on one day the people themselves would drink the water of the river, and on the other, the camel. When it was drinking the water of the river, it would provide them with drink by offering its own milk instead of water. Those people, therefore, being wicked, rose up and killed the camel. It had a foal, a small camel, which, after its mother was slain, cried out to God, and God took it to Himself. We therefore ask the disciples of this storyteller whether the small camel was born from copulation or without copulation? And they say, "Without copulation." And we again ask, "And how without copulation?" And they say they do not know. And we again ask, "But how did God take that small camel to Himself, and where does it graze; and why did your prophet not explain the nature of its birth without intercourse? And where does it graze? And does it live in heaven, or did it die after it was taken up; or has your forerunner entered into paradise?" And having nothing to say, they remain silent.

XXI. He asserts that he holds the keys of paradise; and that on the day of the universal judgment, after Moses and all the Hebrews have been condemned for their transgression of the Law, and after the verdict has been passed against the Christians, ^C which they shall endure because they call Christ the Son of God and God, paradise will be opened by him, and that seventy thousand of those who embraced his teaching will enter together with him, while he declares that the rest of his disciples will be judged; and that the better ones among them will, without doubt, also be brought into paradise, while the worse ones and sinners, carrying a scroll hung around their necks, will also be brought into paradise; and that these will be called "the freedmen of God and of the prophet Muhammad."

XXII. He says that paradise has four rivers: of pure water, pure milk, sweet wine, and strained honey. He also claims that they have sexual intercourse with women in paradise; and that their intercourse is of all things the most pleasurable, lasting, and inexhaustible. He calls the Hebrews and the Christians fire-wood for the eternal fire; but he destines the Samaritans to carry out the dung of those dwelling in paradise, so that, he says, paradise may not stink. All these things—so ridiculous, entirely alien to all Christian doctrine, and also fables and absurd inconsistencies—are in no need of refutation, as they are self-refuting and convict themselves.

XXIII. Shutting off to all people the investigation of those things which he has dogmatized, whether these things be true or not, he commands...

that they be accepted at this time as if divinely inspired, while the investigation and testing of them should be reserved until the final day of the universal judgment; for then ^A that which is truly proven will be manifest. And so that no one may say, "Ask God for a sign to confirm the things you have dogmatized," he feigns a request and says to God: "The members of the household and local disciples of the Scripture (that is, those who have received your heaven-sent Scripture) ask you to let down a scripture to them from heaven—a second scripture, to be sure, that might assure them that the dogmas I have proposed and established are true and pleasing to you." Afterward, he puts forward the case of the Hebrews, claiming that they asked Moses for something greater, saying, "Show us God clearly," and that God destroyed them because of their injustice; that is, He took them away from the midst of the world because of this absurd and foolish request of theirs. He added these things to terrify his disciples, and to prevent them (as has been explained) from seeking proofs of the truth, so that they might not ^B suffer similar things. Yet the Jews rather begged that God should not speak to them, and they considered the glory of God which had appeared on the mountain to be fearful and insupportable; and the example of the Hebrews who perished in such a manner is a false one.

Moreover, in order to gain a reputation for a love of truth and to build up a credible authority for his own dogmas, he introduces certain persons unknown to all, who came to preach before Noah; and to those who believed them, he says they brought a great blessing, but to those who did not believe, a great curse. After Noah, however, he introduces a certain prophet, Tzaled, a brother of Thamod, who neither ever existed nor was named by anyone else; and likewise Saipum, who is equally unknown to Moses and to all other historians. He says that all of these men preached, and that God showed Himself favorable to those who believed them, ^C but where faith was not fully given to them, those nations were destroyed.

XXIV. Then he adds concerning himself the following: "Woe, O men! I am an apostle of God." You have shown, O impostor, from the things you dogmatize, of what god you are an apostle—that is, of the one who is falsely named, I mean Satan. For you teach things that are pleasing to him, but hostile to the true and great God.

He says again, as if in the person of God, concerning himself: "We have sent you to a nation, so that what has been revealed and made manifest to you might preside over and rule them," that is, that they might be subject to the dogmas revealed to you. And he said this to acquire ^D authority and credibility for himself, as he is accustomed to do many times. And again he adds: "Those who reject our religion say that I am not an apostle. Let God suffice for me; He is a witness between me and you." And the phrase, "Let God suffice for me," is the same as if he had said, "God will suffice for me as a testimony; who is a witness for me, that I am His apostle, and for you,

because you do not believe me." He sets forth God as a witness of his apostleship, yet he produces nothing worthy of God; he brings forward neither the badge or symbol of an apostle, nor wonder-working, nor true prophecy, nor a life disciplined in holy exercises, nor, to put it simply, any knowledge; but, without proof or demonstration, he says, "God is my witness."

^B 25. And again in another discourse he narrates the following: "They will surely object to me that I am demon-possessed, in saying that I received these things from God. For if these things were true, some angel would have announced them." He even explains the reasons why no angel descends, and says: "There are some by whom this is prevented; and if the angels should descend, the whole matter would be accomplished by them; and what grace would there be then for men?" But indeed, this is a pretext for your perplexity, and of your ignorance and weakness. For angels have often descended to the earth—or rather, they descend daily, when they are sent for the ministry of those who are to be saved.

26. And what is the sign and proof of his apostleship? "Observe, he says, the shooting stars when Satan ascends to hear what is spoken in heaven; for this reason believe that I am an apostle. For no one else before me taught this." Indeed, no one else taught this, because it is clearly a lie. For these are not *stellar shootings* sent against the demon, as he himself says, but they are the scintillation of the stars. For every star is fire, and according to the nature of fire, it emits sparks.

Again, endeavoring to build up credibility for himself, he introduces God testifying concerning him, swearing and saying: "By the setting star! Your companion has not been misled, nor has he acted wickedly, nor has he spoken out of his own will; his teaching is nothing other than a revelation revealed to him, which the one who is strong in power and invisible revealed to him." But as it is a lie that God swears by a star, so too all that has been revealed to Mohammed is false and diabolical.

He claims that Jesus the Son of Mary prophesied concerning him, saying: "I am the apostle of God to you, confirming those things which were before me in the Law, and announcing an apostle coming after me, whose name is Mohammed." But where did Christ prophesy this, or in what scripture? For you surely possess the oracles of Christ, wherever they are written, with accuracy. Therefore, let the disciples of Mohammed either show this prediction concerning Mohammed to be written in some part of the divinely inspired Scriptures, or let them clearly know that this also is a lie, just like the other of his doctrines.

27. The one hundred and twelfth fable is inscribed

falls [i.e., 'Parcan']. This is a wizarding incantation, which says: 'Say, Spare me, O Lord of light, from the evil (which He fashioned) and from the evil of the emission of the stars, when they are directed, and from the evil of spittle upon the worlds, and from the evil of those who envy.'

The hundred and thirteenth fable is also a wizarding incantation, for it too is inscribed, 'Spare me' [Parcam]; and it is as follows: 'Say, Spare me, O Lord of men (King of men), God of men, from evil; from the evil whispering of demons, when they whisper into the hearts of men, from demons and men.'

28. This wizard handed down certain magical crafts, and demoniacal ceremonies, and other unlawful and nefarious arts and sacrifices. In vain, therefore, do his disciples glory in this; nor are they ashamed to have such a teacher of mysteries, full of every blasphemy, atheism, and monstrosity. ^B

29. Finally, the Ishmaelites say that Ishmael was also the son of God. To whom we answer: that he indeed received a blessing, yet not such as Isaac received (in whose seed God had promised that all nations would be blessed, and that they would be heirs of the greatest promise), but such a blessing as even the brute animals enjoy, namely, to grow and multiply. But of what benefit will it be to the race (of this one) to grow and multiply, and to be frustrated of divine benevolence and grace, and to be an alien from God?

These fabulous trifles of the false prophet Mohammed have been inscribed here for this reason, that Christians, seeing them, may deride him and his disciples and spit upon their error and destruction; and that, extolling the orthodox faith of Christians, which surpasses the sun itself in clarity and splendor, we may, with due thanksgiving, magnify and glorify Christ our Savior and God and His infinite goodness and beneficence, because by His benign mercy He delivered us from this hateful error and destruction, and even from the other error of the wicked and the worship of heretics, who, along with the soul, also surrender the body to destruction. ^C Of whom I, who have written these things, am the first to spit upon and detest these fabulous trifles and every heresy; and I believe in and preach our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. ^D

APPENDIX

Photii—from the letter of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Michael, Prince of the Bulgarians, concerning the seven ecumenical councils.

The first and ecumenical and holy council, etc.

These items are read at the end of the Tergovishte edition:

The avenger of the heretics groans, seeing The wicked heresies published in print, Both his own and theirs brought to triumph and mourning, As the *Panoplia* courses against them, Like a fiery blade of dogma, Of the most pious King Alexios, And incinerating every thought Of the godless doctrines, and the error of the peddlers of falsehood. For these things that the champions of the Trinity, with toil— Having hoped in the Trinity beyond measure— Produced by the torch-bearing of the Spirit; The divine master gathered these with love, And having urged Zigabenus to organize them, Which Metrophanes now corrects in print, He rejoices in his spirit, having reached the end of the book.

In the year of our salvation 1710, on the second day of the month of Skirophorion.

The least among hieromonks, Metrophanes, Gregoras from Dodona.

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS. PANOPLIA DOGMATICA. PROLEGOMENA, in which is contained the Review of the Moscow manuscripts of the Panoplia by Chr. Frid. Matthaei. 9 EUTHYMIUS’S PROLOGUE TO ALEXIUS COMNENUS. 19 INDEX OF THE BOOK. 31 TITLE I. Syllogistic reasoning by which it is demonstrated that God is one and of the same nature, and that the Word, and the Spirit likewise—namely the Son and the Holy Spirit—possess [that same nature]. From the catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa. 34 Of the Holy Spirit. 59 Syllogistic reasoning of the same Damascene on the same matters by which he demonstrates that God is. 42 Syllogistic reasoning of the same by which he demonstrates that God is one. 45 Syllogistic reasoning of the same by which he declares that the Word and the Son exist. 43 Syllogistic reasoning of the same by which he proves that the Holy Spirit exists. 43 Admirable reasoning of the same by examples, by which he demonstrates that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit [are one]. 45 TITLE II. On the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct yet united nature of the Divinity. Of Dionysius the Areopagite from chapter 2 on united and distinct theology. 46 From chapter 1 of the book *On the Divine Names*. 46 From chapter 13 on the perfect and the one. 46 From chapter 3 on mystical theology. 46 From chapter 2 on united and distinct theology. 47 Item, on the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that the nature of the Divinity is distinct yet joined, and that the things which the divine Scriptures say of the Father, they likewise say of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, showing one Divinity in three, of the Great Athanasius. This chapter, with the following one, is missing in the Tergoviste edition of 1710; they exist in the version of Fr. Zini. Chr. Frid. Matthaei first published them in Greek in the *Prolegomena* to Euthymius’s *Commentary on the Gospels*, p. 13 et seqq.; the latter exists among the Works of St. Basil. 50 On the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the essence of the Divinity, equally distinct yet united, of the Great Basil from his oration on the faith. 54 On the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the essence of the Divinity, equally distinct yet united, of the Great Basil from his epistle to his brother Gregory on the difference between essence and person. 57 Of the same from the eighteenth of the chapters to Amphilochius. 59 Of the same from the oration on the dogma and status of bishops. 63 Of the same from the oration to Heron the philosopher. 65 Of the same from the second oration on peace. 67 Of the same from the oration on the birthday of Christ. 69 Of the same on the Holy Lights. 71 From the same oration. 71 Of the same from the hortatory oration for receiving baptism. 71 From the same oration. 73 Of the same from the oration to the bishops who had arrived by ship from Egypt. 75 Of the same from the oration against the Arians, in which he also speaks of himself. 79 From the oration which he delivered in the presence of one hundred and fifty bishops. 81 From the oration on the Holy Spirit. 83 Item, on the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of Gregory, sovereign pontiff, from his oration against Ablabius. 85 Of the same from the oration to Evagrius the monk on the Divinity. 87 From the same oration. 87 Item, on the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Exposition of the faith of St. Cyril. 87 Item, on the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Of St. Maximus. 95 Of the same. 95 Of the same. 97 Of the same. 97 Of the same. 97 Of the same. 99 Of the same from the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. 99 Of the same. 99 Item, on the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity. Damascene. Cap. 8. 99 Of the same from cap. 12. 115 Item, on the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity of various Fathers. 115 TITLE III. On God, or concerning the Divinity in common. It is clear that he who calls God, or the Divinity, or the divine Name, declares by the common appellation of these the three hypostases, or persons, of the Divinity. Areopagite. In order that these might be clearer, they have been explained somewhat more fully by a certain paraphrase. 123 Item, on God in common, of St. Maximus. 142 Item, on God in common, of John Damascene from chapter 11. 151 Of the same on place, from chapter 15. 151 TITLE IV. That the divine nature cannot be comprehended. Of the Great Gregory the Theologian, from the oration on the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ. 155 Of the same, from the oration on theology. 157 Of the same from the same oration. 159 Of the same from the oration on the modesty to be observed in disputations. 173 Of the same from the great apologetic oration. 175 On the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the distinct yet united essence of the Divinity, of the Great Gregory the Theologian from the first oration on the Son. 175 Item, that the divine nature cannot be comprehended. Of Chrysostom from the book which contains the orations in which he demonstrates that God is incomprehensible. 177 Item, that the divine nature cannot be comprehended. Of the Damascene. Cap. 1. 185 Of the same. Cap. 2. 187 TITLE V. On the divine appellation. Of the Areopagite, from the book on the divine names. 189 Item on the divine appellation, of the Great Gregory the Theologian from the oration on the Son. 191 TITLE VI. On the making of God [God’s handiwork]. Of Gregory the Theologian from the oration on the birthday of Christ. 197 From the oration on the Holy Lights. 199 From the oration on the birthday of Christ. 199

^A Item on the work of God, from the catechetical oration of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. 201 Item on the work of God, of Saint Maximus. 203

TITLE VII. On the divine assumption of human flesh.

TITLE VIII. Against the Hebrews.

TITLE IX. Against Simon the Samaritan, and Marcion the Pontic, and Manes the Persian, and the Manichaeans, of the great Athanasius.

TITLE X. Against Sabellius.

TITLE XI. Against the Arians.

Of the same to the same. From the 11th oration on the Son. 575 Of the same concerning the dogma and ordination of bishops. 591 Of the same from the 11th oration on peace. 595 Of the same from the 11th oration on Easter. 597 Item against the Arians and Eunomians, of Gregory of Nyssa, the pontiff, from the oration to Simplicius written concerning the Son. 599 Of the same from the oration on the divinity of the Son and the Spirit. 603 Item against the Arians, by the great John Chrysostom, from the interpretation of those words: "Let us make man." 107 Of the same from the interpretation of those words: "And God took the man whom he had formed." 607 Of the same from the interpretation of those words: "In the beginning was the Word." 607 From the same book. 611 Of the same on those words: "All things were made through him." 615 Of the same from the interpretation of that sentence: "Who is in the bosom of the Father." 617 Item against the Arians, of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. From his commentaries on the Gospel of John. 619 Another observation on the words, "In the beginning was the Word." 619 Of the same from the book on the Trinity. 625 Of the same from the second book of the *Thesaurus*, on the words: "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus." 627 From the same book on the words: "And God made him both Lord and Christ." 629 From the same book on the words: "Glorify thy Son." 631 From the same book on the words: "But of that day or hour." 631 From the same book on the words: "And delivered all things into his hand." 631 From the same book, a response against the Arians from these words: "That they may know thee the only true God." 633 From the same book on the words: "And Jesus advanced." 635 From the same book, on the words: "Father, glorify me." 635 From the same book, sixteen sentences of the apostles, by which he demonstrates that the Son is God by nature, and not made or created. 637 Of the same from the commentaries on the Gospel of John against the Arians who say that the inner Word of God is different from the Son. 645 Of the same from the first book of the *Thesaurus* on the words: "So he has given to the Son also to have life in himself." 649 Of the same from the book on the holy Trinity. 655 Of the same from the *Thesaurus*, chapter 6 of the first book. 657 From the sixth chapter of the same book. 659 From the seventh chapter of the same book. 661 From the same book, chapter 20. 663 From the second book of the *Thesaurus*, chapter 29. 665 Of the same from the commentaries on the Gospel of John, that the Son is not lesser than the Father. 665 Of the same from the book on the holy Trinity. 669 Of the same from the *Thesaurus*, chapter 10 of the first book. 669 From the first book of the *Thesaurus*, chapter 9. 671 And the four following chapters demonstrate that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. 679 Of the same from the *Thesaurus*, chapter 1, book 1. On the Unbegotten, chapter 8. 681 Item against the Arians, from Damascene, chapter 85, [is] very necessary. 683

TITULUS XII. Concerning the Holy Spirit, of the great Athanasius, from the oration on the advent of Christ in the flesh.

Of the same to those who say that it is written often concerning the Son and the Father, but concerning the Spirit only in baptism. 737 Of the same from the chapter of the thirty chapters to Amphilochius, consistent with the doctrine. 741 Of the same against those who say that the Holy Spirit ought not to be joined to the Father and the Son. Chapter 10. 745 Of the same against those who say that baptism in the name of the Lord alone is sufficient. Chapter 12. 747 Why angels are joined along with the Father and the Son in Paul. Chapter 13. 719 Chapter 14. 751 Of the same, that in every notion the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father and the Son, whether in the creation of intelligible creatures, or in the dispensation of human affairs, or in the judgment that is awaited. Chapter 16. 755 Chapter 19. 765 Chapter 20. 769 Testimonies from the Scriptures that the Spirit is called Lord. 771 Chapter 21. 773 Of the same, confirmation of the natural communion of the Spirit, in that he is incomprehensible just as the Father and the Son. Chapter 22. 775 Of the same. That the glory of the Spirit is the enumeration of those things which are present to him. Chapter 25. 777 Of the same. Refutation of the absurdity of those who do not glorify the Spirit, from a comparison of those things which receive glory among the creatures. Chapter 24. 777 That Scripture uses this syllable "in" for "with"; where it is also proved that they have the same force. 781 Chapter 25. 785 Of the same. In how many ways "in" is said, in so many ways it is accepted concerning the Spirit. Chapter 26. 785 Whence the syllable "with" has its beginning, and what power it has; where also [he speaks] of the laws of the Church not produced in writing. Chapter 27. 791 Of the same. That the adversaries do not grant that those things which Scripture says of men as reigning with Christ, are said of the Spirit. Chapter 28. 797 Of the same. Enumeration of illustrious men in the Church, who in their writings have used this word, "with." Chapter 29. 801 Of the same, from the Epistle to Eustathius of Armenia. 807 Of the same from the third oration against Eunomius. 809 Against the Pneumatomachi, of St. Gregory the Theologian from the oration on the Holy Spirit. 819 Of the same from the oration on the Epiphany. 845 Of the same from the oration on Pentecost. 845 Of the same from the other epistle to Cledonius, which for its length is like a book. 849 Item against the opponents of the Spirit, of Gregory of Nyssa, the pontiff, from the oration to Simplicius. 849 Of the same from the oration on the divinity of the Son and Spirit. 851 Of the same from the third oration on prayer. 853 Of the same from the oration on baptism. 853 Of the same from the oration to Eustathius, written against those who impugn the Holy Spirit. 855

Item against the opponents of the Spirit, a collection from the various books of Saint Cyril concerning the testimonies of Scripture, from which it is demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is God. But this collection is taken from the *Thesaurus*, but sporadically, and by way of an epilogue. From the Epistle to the Romans. 859 From the Acts of the Apostles. 859 From the Psalms. 861 From the Epistle to the Corinthians. 863 From the Gospel of John. 863 Objection of the heretics. 865 From the Gospel of John. 867 Objection of the heretics. 869 From the Epistle to the Romans. 869 From the Epistle to the Corinthians. 869 From the Gospel. 869 From the Epistle of James. 869 From the Epistle of Peter. 869

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE ITEMS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

From the Epistle of John. 871 From the Gospel according to Matthew. 871 From the Gospel according to John. 871 By the same. 873

TITLE XIII. Of Photius the patriarch, against the claims of Rome: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not also from the Son.

TITLE XIV. Against Apollinarius.

TITLE XV. Against the Nestorians.

TITLE XVI. Of the great Athanasius, against those who say that Christ has one composite nature.

TITLE XVII. Against the Aphthartodocetae, who had as leaders Julian of Halicarnassus and Gainas of Alexandria, from the scholia of Leontius of Byzantium.

TITLE XVIII. Against the Theopaschites, who held that the divinity of the Son and of God is passible.

TITLE XIX. Against the Agnoetae, who say that the Son, like one less than the Father, ignores the day and hour of the consummation of the world.

TITLE XX. Against Origen, who determined that the first man was created incorporeal before the fall, but after the fall put on coats of skin, that is, a body; that the soul existed before the body, and the same soul is clothed with many bodies; that it will have to endure punishments after the general resurrection; that demons will be restored to their pristine state; that sinful men will be justified; that bodies of the dead will not rise again; that the kingdom of Christ will at some time have an end, and trifled with certain other things. 1103

TITLE XXI. Against the Monothelites, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, patriarchs of Constantinople, and others of the same kind.

ORDER OF THE CONTENTS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.

From the same, from an epistle to Nicandrus, bishop of Cyprus, and to the prefects of those who lead a solitary life in Sicily. 1119

From the same, from an oration in which he proves that there are two wills in Christ. 1125

From the same, on those words, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." 1135

From the same, from the disputation held with Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople. 1157

From the same disputation: that the flesh is not moved by the mere will of the Word, as Pyrrhus said. 1137

Item, from the epistle to Nicandrus, bishop. 1145

From the same, against those who say that Christ has one operation by dominion. 1145

From the same, against those who say that, just as the action of an instrument and of him who uses the instrument is one, so also the action of the divinity and humanity is one. 1147

Item, against the Monothelites, from Damascenus, Chapter 77. 1147

From the same, Chapter 78. 1155

From the same, from Chapter 79. 1153

From the same, from Chapter 81. 1155

From the same, from Chapter 82. 1155

From the same, Chapter 85. 1157

Item, against the Monothelites, from various other Fathers. 1159

TITLE XXII. Against the opponents of the icons, a certain epitome drawn both from the acts of the seventh council, and from the Constantinopolitan patriarchs Germanus and Nicephorus, and from the writings of Blessed Theodore the Studite.

TITLE XXIII. Against the Armenians.

TITLE XXIV. Against the Paulicians.

That one is the creator of body and soul, namely, of man. 1211

On the Mother of God. 1215

That the Old Testament, and those who were illustrious in it, are of the good God. 1219

That the author of the Old and New Testament is one, and that they are consonant with each other, and not contrary, as the enemies of God will. 1219

TITLE XXV. On the cross, on holy baptism, and on the mystery of the eucharist.

On holy baptism: from the thirty chapters of the Great Basil to Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium. 1247

From the Theologian, from an oration in which he exhorts to baptism. 1249

From Gregory of Nyssa, bishop, from a catechetical oration, also on baptism. 1251

From Damascenus, also on baptism. 1253

On the transubstantiation of the Lord's body and blood, from Gregory of Nyssa, bishop, from a catechetical oration. 1261

Item, on the transubstantiation of the Lord's body and blood, from Damascenus. 1265

TITLE XXVI. Against the Massalians.

TITLE XXVII. Against the Bogomils.

TITLE XXVIII. Against the Saracens, who are called Ishmaelites, because they derive their origin from Ishmael. This one, however, was the son of Abraham, conceived from Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid. But they are called Hagarenes from Hagar, the mother of Ishmael. And they are called Saracens from the fact that Hagar, when she was sent away by her mistress, was traveling in the desert and said to the angel "Sara cenin" (that is, "she sent me away empty"), as they themselves say.

1331

Verses which are read at the end of the Tergoviste edition. 1361

THE END OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTIETH VOLUME.