Theorianus, Christian Philosopher

^A 9. A deacon and presbyter who have confessed that they sinned with their lips, shall communicate after being removed from the ministry. 10. He who is conscious of any sin, and conceals it, shall be punished with an equal penalty. 11. Let him who has denied Christ do penance throughout his entire life. 12. One who is defiled with a sister or a bride shall not enter the temple; but when he has desisted from the sin, let him mourn for three years and be subject to penance for six years. 13. One who has left his own wife and taken another, being an adulterer, shall be subject to penance for seven years. 14. One who becomes mad for his stepmother, as one who is mad for his sister. ^B 15. Polygamists are beastly; yet let them be received after three years. 16. Those who have violated the faith through torments shall be subject to penance for eight years; but those who have done so willingly and of their own accord, for twelve years. 17. One who has been forced by violence to perjure himself is to be received after six years; but if without necessity, after twelve. 18. Do not judge penances by time, but by modes; but if they persist in their sins and contradict, you shall save your own soul.

THEORIANUS - PREFACE

Joannes Leunclavius, in the year 1578, published at Basel in Greek and Latin, from a codex of Joannes Sambucus, the religious disputation of the philosopher Theorianus held in the year 1170 with Nerses, the general patriarch of the Armenians; and this little book subsequently passed into the libraries of the Fathers, and was also presented by Galanus in his work *De concordia*, elaborated also for the sake of the Armenians in an Armenian translation, because that writing could nowhere be found among the Armenians. I myself, having recently inspected this little book for the sake of examining certain opinions of that nation, was indeed grieved that so useful and beautiful a booklet was disfigured by a certain gap in the middle. Therefore, having turned to the Vatican codices, I immediately discovered two, and then a third, which held the aforementioned disputation of Theorianus kept intact by no blemish. Nor did the benefit stop there; but since Leunclavius had begun his edition with these words: "Imperial diploma to the general of the Armenians"; and since that diploma, or epistle, does not exist at all in his edition, but is read in the Vatican codices; I wondered at the error of Leunclavius, who did not recognize that this was the external inscription of an epistle, desired in the Sambucus codex because the page at the beginning had been torn off; or certainly that this title is not suitable for the succeeding booklet, which is certainly not an imperial epistle, but a theological disputation of Theorianus. Therefore, I, with the help of the Vatican codices, having now obtained two supplements for his booklet—namely, the gap in the middle, and the earlier epistle with which the Emperor Manuel had commissioned the embassy of Theorianus—felt my joy increased much more vehemently when, in two of these codices, a second one also...

^A of the same Theorianus was discovered—a disputation held two years later, which was not only as yet unprinted, but entirely unknown to our learned men and even to the Greeks and Armenians themselves; regarding which matter, we must discourse a little more diligently.

XI. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus, a man of a fervent spirit and deeply imbued with theological disciplines, in the final years of his reign applied his mind to religious controversies, of which fact Ephræmius, whom I have edited, as well as the great council of so many bishops and patriarchs celebrated at Byzantium in the year 1166, which is read in the fourth volume of my collection, are witnesses alongside other historians; to which I shall someday add another unpublished one, convened under the same emperor. To say nothing now of Manuel’s cares for restoring concord with the Latins (1), the letters of Nerses, patriarch of the Armenians, sufficiently demonstrate that this Emperor had long and seriously pondered reconciliation with the Church of the Armenians and the purging of their errors, if there were any. When it seemed that this might be achieved, he finally sent Theorianus as an envoy to the East, a great man preeminent in theological and philosophical doctrine, so that he might dispute with Patriarch Nerses—a man of most illustrious fame—regarding the controversial dogmas and rites, and, God willing, bring the matter to a conclusion. And this is that very colloquy which Leunclavius, as I have said, published, and which I have completed by the help of a Vatican codex where it was missing. What happened subsequently was unknown to the Armenians: nor is only their ancient historian, in Galanus, vol. I, p. 238, who says that Nerses, while waiting for the return of Theorianus to him, departed from this life, ignorant of this, but even the modern author of a historical compendium published at Venice, vol. II, p. 69, is stalled in the same obscurity of events. Yet, nevertheless, the Armenian Menologium in Galanus, the aforementioned volume, p. 241, says that the Greeks returned to Nerses, even though the business remained unfinished on account of Nerses' death. Moreover, what the Menologium hints at briefly regarding the second embassy, Bar-Hebraeus ^B narrates copiously and accurately in Assemanus, whose words I have cited on p. 388. Therefore, the second embassy of Theorianus to the East is established by the testimony of both the Armenian Menologium and the Syrian Bar-Hebraeus. But the Menologium says nothing of a repeated colloquy with Nerses; Bar-Hebraeus speaks of a colloquy with his own Syrians, though he implies that the patriarch of the Armenians was not unfamiliar with it: now, behold, at last, the Vatican codex, written not long after that age, has provided me with the entire, hitherto unknown and magnificent disputation, held by Theorianus with Nerses during the second embassy. Therefore, I am pleased to speak of one codex, because I have shown that the second is merely an old transcript, p. 337; the third codex, however, contains only the prior disputation of Theorianus, just as the one of Sambucus does. Yet, what the Armenians hand down—that the business was not concluded under Nerses—is still truly said; for although in the second colloquy Nerses provided his assent to the primary dogma and concord, he declared that the matter must be sanctioned by an universal council of the nation, not without Patriarch Anicetus (2); and since Nerses passed from this life in the following year, that is 1173, as the Menologium says, the whole proceeding lay dormant until, four years later—that is, in the year 1177—it found a fuller outcome at the Council of Tarsus of the Armenians.

XII. What is therefore read in this second disputation is all new; namely, three letters of the Emperor Manuel, one of Nerses, and two of Michael, Patriarch of Byzantium, although the first was sent in the name of Manuel. And indeed, the two dogmatic letters of Nerses and Michael are illustrious monuments of theology. The subsequent disputation concerning the two natures of Christ, concerning the mingling of water with wine in the chalice, concerning the appropriate days of festivals, concerning the matter of the chrism, and concerning certain other chapters which are accumulated on p. 378, demonstrate to us clearly how far the Armenians dissented from the Church of the Greeks. Subjoined is the disputation with the Syrians to whom, by Manuel’s command, Theorianus soon journeyed. Certainly, that most luculent profession of faith by Michael, the great patriarch of the Jacobites, which now comes to light for the first time, is a distinct document of the dogmas of the Jacobite sect, which we know to have been laboring at that time under this one error: saying that there is one nature of Christ. That, indeed, is notable, that on p. 390 the Jacobite says he is ^C alien to the error of Eutyches, and denies that any confusion occurred in the hypostatic union: "For the divinity," he says, "remained divinity; the flesh, likewise, remained flesh." And again: "It appears the natures were preserved; yet one is believed because of the indivisibility." But even the Armenian, p. 323, speaks in this way, except that the orthodox and holy man Nerses greatly amends his statement when he says that he also admits two natures with the theologian Gregory; which the Jacobite, in his profession, does not admit. Hence, it is clearly evident how rightly and how wisely the Greeks demanded of Nerses that he abstain entirely from the locution of "one nature," which Nerses finally, on p. 382, promises he will do. But lest this be thought to have been forged by the author of the dialog, Theorianus, for the sake of victory, behold, in the Council of Tarsus (3) as well, the Armenian Fathers, the fifth ^D from Allatius, *De consensu*, lib. II, 12. But in the aforementioned edition of the councils, it is written wrongly and ridiculously *Michel* (as if Michael) for Manuel; which error has once crept even into the Latin interpretation of Allatius, although the Greek text in the same place rightly reads, Μανουὴλ. [Note: Footnotes (1), (2), and (3) omitted as per instructions. Footnote (2) mentions: "Regarding the Albanorum, or Georgians, mention is made not once of an Armenian Patriarch Anicetus, in Mansi *Collect. concil.* t. XXV. Moses of Chorene, *Hist.* lib. I, 3, hints at the origin of his patriarchate."]

after the dialogue, they solemnly promise that for the future they will equally omit the term "one nature," in order to do away with any cause of offense. I would not wish, therefore, that this controversy be hereafter termed by Oriental writers (as I see it has been done a few times) as something almost trivial, or merely regarding words and logical subtleties.

^C XIII. Since, however, Nerses was the leader of the Armenians' disputation with Theorianus, I thought it would be worth the effort if I were to make certain excerpts from his dogmatic letters, which are in an Armenian codex in the Vatican Library—the most learned interpreter of his nation favoring me in this—and to inscribe them at the end of the disputation, so that these writings might mutually shed light upon one another. But it pleases me to recite here one tract, omitted by me at that time, from Nerses' letter to Alexius, which is also placed in the *Compendium historicum*, vol. II, p. 66, in slightly different words from another codex; for from that, Nerses' meaning, when he spoke of one nature of Christ, becomes evidently clear. Thus, therefore, in the Vatican codex Nerses says: "We speak of one nature in Christ, not by confusion, as Eutyches, but according to Cyril of Alexandria, who against Nestorius in his letters says that there is one nature of the incarnate Word (which expression of Cyril is long ventilated in the disputation and in the letter of Michael the Byzantine). For the 'one hypostasis' which you (Greeks) say, which is correct, and we likewise profess, one and the same thing is affirmed by us when we say 'one nature': that we do not say this in a heretical sense is clear even from this, that when we speak about that matter, we do not subsist in 'one nature,' but we show the properties of both. One nature, I say, is not spoken of by us for any other reason than because of the indivisible and ineffable union of the Word with the flesh. Indeed, we do not refuse to speak of two natures, provided that this be said not for the sake of dividing, as Nestorius, but against Eutyches and Apollinaris to avoid confusion." These things, as I think, show that Nerses' mind was without doubt orthodox; but yet, when he affirmed "one nature," he disagreed fundamentally with the Syrian expression ^D; but when he affirmed "two," then at last he aptly, properly, and safely signified the catholic sentiment which in reality he cherished in his heart. As for what Nerses says in a pastoral letter published some years ago, p. 18: "One Christ, and one person of his from two united natures," we shall desire nothing more if only it is certainly added or sub-understood, with Michael of Constantinople (p. 333), "one person of Christ in two natures, and having two natures"—although, as I have often said, there can be no doubt in any way about the orthodox mind of Nerses.

XIV. And up to this point has the concord of the Armenians with the Greeks been brought in times past, glued together, clearly, by these colloquies and confirmed in the council of Tarsus: although, shortly after the death of Emperor Manuel and the disturbances in the affairs of the Comnenian family, little or no fruit of that concord existed. With the Latins, however, the Armenians seem to have consented even more willingly, obedience having been frequently offered to the Roman pontiffs through the letters of bishops and kings; and then indeed in the synod of Sis celebrated in the year 1307, and in that of Adana in the year 1316, both of which are in Galanus; but especially in another, in Mansi *Concil.* vol. XXV, p. 1186 (in the year 1342, under Pope Benedict XII and the Patriarch Mequitarius), the Armenians purged themselves of the errors objected to them and professed concord with the Roman Church. But nothing defines the cause of the Armenians so well as the ecumenical Council of Florence, in which the Armenians embraced that most wise constitution of Eugenius IV, subscribed to it, and promised due observance: of which constitution it seems that must be said which the Greek Fathers pronounced concerning the letter of Leo the Great, namely, that it is a pillar of faith, upon which leaning, the Armenians will never totter. For nothing of sound and necessary doctrine is lacking there—to wit, concerning the two natures of Christ, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, concerning the reception of Chalcedon and all the synods confirmed by the Pope, concerning the seven sacraments, concerning the holy oil, concerning feast days, concerning the sacred mixing of the chalice, concerning the faith of the Athanasian Creed, concerning the primacy of the Roman See, and concerning the dogmas defined at Florence in the reconciliation with the Greek Church: all of which Pope Nicholas IV had also provided beforehand in a letter to Hayton, king of the Armenians (5). Therefore, these rules are to be obeyed faithfully and accurately; for as regards certain subtle and exquisite excuses of the schismatics of those evil or unhappy times, although they may spring from a love of their own nation and a zeal for orthodox praise, and are done with an ingenuous and upright mind; yet they contribute very little to the purity and security of the Catholic faith; nay rather, they sometimes obscure already-declared dogmas and stir up defined controversies again: and it is much better to distinguish error or the suspicion of error from Catholic truth and simplicity freely and confidently, lest the darkness of the place should prove a hindrance, and lest it should be clear that the incautious people perhaps allow a slight distinction to come between error and orthodoxy.

THEORIANUS THE ORTHODOX: DISPUTATION WITH THE CATHOLICOS OF THE ARMENIANS

^A A copy of the royal and divine letter to the Catholicos of the Armenians. It is not without reason that it is placed in this book of the disputation, since from its contents the subject matter of the whole treatise is made known.

Manuel, faithful in Christ God, king, Porphyrogenitus, crowned by God, ruler, strong, exalted, ever-Augustus and emperor of the Romans, Comnenus, to the most reverend and most to be honored Catholicos of the Armenians, his grace.

Since my majesty has often learned from your report the praiseworthy zeal and desire which you cherish concerning the orthodox faith of Christians; and since I have perceived that you—having heard the charges of the holy Church against you, for which cause she does not keep you in her bosom as those who dissent—are prepared to gladly receive discourse on this matter, and to transfer your allegiance to the most holy Church; I, for my part, greatly commend and embrace your wisdom. Having communicated this matter with the most holy patriarch and with the holy and divine synod, I have found ^B the whole body of the most holy Church eager and compliant toward receiving you, provided it be clearly established that you believe correctly and piously. For this reason, my majesty has sent to your reverence this master and philosopher Theorianus, who is subject to my majesty, together with Atman, the abbot of the Armenian monastery which is in Philippopolis, so that they may signify to you what seems right to the most holy Church and to my majesty regarding this matter. It shall be lawful, therefore,

^A to your prudence to place faith in the words which the aforementioned men will speak among you. Certainly, I wish you to be persuaded of this: that if you act thus, and approach the orthodox parties of the Christians, first of all, with God looking upon you, you will safely and easily obtain the salvation of your souls (and what could happen to those who think rightly which is better or more precious than this?), and secondly, you will also obtain the manifold grace of my majesty for all things that you may request. Farewell. In the month of November, of the third indiction, written in red ink by the imperial hand.

Royal Letter to the most reverend and highly esteemed General of the Armenians.

DISPUTATIO.

In the year since the creation of the world ^B 6678, in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of the most pious, Christ-loving, and divinely crowned lord Manuel, born in the purple, Comnenus; in the third indiction, on the fifteenth day of the month of May, with God’s help, we reached the borders of the Romans. And after we greeted the Catholicos of the Armenians, lord Nerses, in the name of our mighty and holy emperor, we gave him the imperial divine letter addressed to him, ^C and explained to him the good will which our mighty and holy emperor bears toward him; and how, out of the exceeding great desire he has for his union—both his own and that of his subjects—with the holy, universal, and apostolic Church, he had sent us, his most humble servants, across such a great distance and by such a hard road, to your great holiness. Having heard these things, the Catholicos said to us:

We give thanks to the holy emperor, because he takes thought for us also, the most insignificant of those who offer prayers for his holy empire; and because, having the cares of the whole world, he has not forgotten us either.

The next day, having summoned us, he said to us: ^D Having read the imperial and divine letter addressed to me from the divinely-appointed, divinely-crowned, and most pious emperor, I have learned his will, and that of the holy Church of the Romans, that if we wish to correct our errors regarding the orthodox faith, the holy emperor and the holy, universal, and apostolic Church are ready to receive us as brothers. We wish, therefore, to be taught what those things are in which we are said to wander from the faith; and if we are convicted according to the canon by means of scriptural proofs and reasonable demonstrations, we shall eagerly accept that correction.

THEORIANUS. I beseech your great holiness to receive our discourse with the innate [gentleness given to you, and not to consider our questions burdensome. Let it be to us as...]

if from an inquiry and agreement on both sides, that whenever we hear something that seems not to be of right notion, we do not straightway pronounce it to be heretical, but inquire diligently and be instructed as to the meaning of the expression and the mind of the one who uses it. We must also be on guard against the incompetence of the interpreter, who not only does not know grammar, but does not even correctly understand common Greek speech, lest his ignorance or slip be attributed to us. GEN. You speak rightly; so let it be. THEOR. Your great holiness sent a letter to our ^A almighty and holy emperor, in which you discuss certain heads of faith and ecclesiastical customs. I therefore ask your great holiness: do you hold the same views as are written therein, or do you consider anything written in it to be of no consequence? GEN. I felt that way then, and I feel the same way now, as I have written in it. THEOR. Which councils do you accept? GEN. The Nicene of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers; the Constantinopolitan of the one hundred and fifty holy and divinely inspired Fathers; and the Ephesian of the two hundred holy Fathers, in which Nestorius was deposed from office. THEOR. Whose teachers' writings and doctrines do you approve? GEN. Those of the great Athanasius, of holy Gregory the Theologian, of Basil the Great, of holy Gregory of Nyssa, of holy John Chrysostom, of holy Ephrem, of holy Cyril, ^B prelate of Alexandria, and of many others. THEOR. Let us then begin the reading of your letter, and let us consider as brothers the sense of the heads contained in it, whether it follows the aforementioned divine Fathers and holy councils. GEN. You speak rightly; so let it be. And having read, we came to the place where it was written: "We say there is one nature in Christ, not confounding as Eutyches, nor diminishing as Apollinaris, but according to Cyril, the prelate of Alexandria, in the orthodoxy which he wrote in his book against Nestorius, that one is the nature of the Word incarnate." THEOR. Saint Cyril did not say "one nature in Christ" nor "one nature of Christ," but "one nature of the Word," and then he added "incarnate." But your holiness, I do not know how, ^C has thoughtlessly and freely said "one nature in Christ." And I marvel indeed why you have dared to make an alteration of the word placed by the holy man. GEN. I have not altered it. For "nature of Christ" and "nature of the Word incarnate" signify the same thing. THEOR. It does not signify the same thing, God forbid! For the name "Christ" properly signifies the compound of both, God and man at once; therefore we say, "The Word became flesh"

but we do not say, "Christ became flesh." ^A And this is also evident from the fact that no one among the saints has said, "The one nature of Christ." But the holy Cyril, and before him the holy Athanasius, spoke of "the one nature of the Word." For when we say "the one nature of the Word," it signifies the divine nature of the Son; but when we add "incarnate," as the holy Cyril did in his second letter to Successus, the whole rationale of the economy with the flesh is brought in.

GEN. And who among the saints spoke this explicitly after the union?

THEOR. All those whose names you enumerated above.

GEN. Demonstrate one of them to us, and it will suffice us; for what is said by one of the saints, is said by all, ^B as being inspired by one and the same divine Spirit.

THEOR. I shall demonstrate not just one, but, with God's help, all whom you mentioned by name above. Only do not grow weary as you listen, and I will produce the testimonies of all.

GEN. It is for this that we have gathered, that we might find the truth; and we ought not to grow weary in such matters.

THEOR. Before I present the quotations, I think it is necessary to say what is essence, and what is nature, and what is hypostasis, and what is person. For this reason I ask, how do you understand these? As the outsiders, or as the teachers of the Church have defined them?

GEN. We know the definitions of both regarding these proposed terms, ^C and we direct them knowledgeably toward the straightness of the dogmas of piety.

THEOR. I observe a great difference in these matters between outsiders and the teachers of the Church. For those learned men from the outside define the individual, that is the hypostasis, and that which is one in number, as essence; which is something the divine Fathers do not accept. For the God-bearing Fathers call the universal essence and nature, which the outsiders called "species." Therefore, in the holy Trinity, they dogmatized one nature and one essence, but three hypostases; as if the nature and essence contain many hypostases. Indeed, the nature of men, being one, ^D has infinite hypostases, such as Peter and Paul and all individual men. But Aristotle defined the individual and that which is one in number, that is the hypostasis, strictly as essence, saying thus: "Essence is that which is most properly, primarily, and most especially said, which is neither spoken of any subject, nor is it in any subject, such as this man or this horse." How, then, is it possible to reconcile those outside our fold with our teachers on this point, when the former define essence and nature as something universal, and the latter as singular?

GEN. We also [define] essence and nature about

universal things, but person and hypostasis about singular things. ^A THEOR. Bravo, most blessed Father, for this answer: for you are in agreement on this point too with the holy Fathers. What then? Shall we set forth their definitions and explanation, or shall this alone suffice us, that essence and nature are something universal, while hypostasis and person are singular? GEN. If it will not be troublesome for you to explain, I shall listen with pleasure. THEOR. I shall bring forth nothing of my own, but whatever the lights of the Church have taught us. GEN. I also desire to learn this same thing, what it is that the teachers of the Church have handed down. ^B THEOR. The holy Fathers have defined essence thus: Essence is, primarily and properly, everything that subsists by itself, and does not have its being in another. And what is that which subsists by itself? That which is in itself, and not through another, nor has its being in another; that is to say, that which does not need anything else outside itself in order to exist; such is the case, for instance, with color—namely, white or black—and such things, which cannot exist by themselves without a body that receives them, and therefore we do not say that color is an essence. But the body itself, in which the color is, does not need the color in order to be a body; indeed, even when colors are changed, the body itself does not change. For it becomes black from white, and from black it may put on yellow or another color; but it remains itself, what it is, forever. ^C Color therefore exists for the sake of the body, that it may color it; but the body exists not for the sake of the color, but for its own sake. And color has its being in the body; but the body does not have its being in the color, but in itself. For this reason, therefore, we call the body an essence, since it is self-subsistent and has its being in itself, not in another. Therefore, everything that is self-subsistent, and exists in itself and not in another, is an essence. And these things are either material or immaterial. Material are earth, water, air, fire, and things composed of these, such as stone, plant, animate body; immaterial are an ensouled, rational soul, an angel. These things, therefore, as I was just saying, are called essence. For God is supersubstantial, ^D situated above all essence, and anything that exists beyond these.

Thus we have now understood what essence is. Nature, however, is the principle of motion and rest for each of these things just enumerated, insofar as it exists in them primarily, and not according to accident. For example, I say that the earth is moved, insofar as it produces shoots and offspring, and is changed in its entirety, insofar as it is transformed into itself according to these very things; but it rests regarding its transition from place to place, being entirely immovable and devoid of travel. The principle, therefore, of such rest and motion, which exists substantially in the earth, and did not come to it from some other cause, we call nature. And the very name of nature is derived from being born, that is, from existing. From which it comes about that the name of essence and nature signifies the same thing; the one

^A derived from words denoting parity and having the signification of existing. And essence and nature are the same not only in name, but also in reality, or at least something very close to it. For we have not called the very motion and rest of things nature, but the principle, that is, the cause, according to which substances move and rest, not accidentally, but substantially. Hypostasis, however, is a thing subsisting and substantial, in which a collection of accidents, as in one subject, subsists in reality and effect. Essence, therefore, is the very thing that exists, while hypostasis is both that which exists and those things which are considered in it, as it were, accidentally. But person is that which, through its own proper actions and characteristics, offers a manifest and distinct indication of itself from others that are sharers of the same nature. As, for instance, Michael the archangel, ^B when he was disputing with the devil over the body of Moses, and when he was revealing those divine oracles to Daniel, was showing us one person, distinguished from the rest of the angels. Therefore, the knowledge of someone, which we obtain from an effect, teaches us to call this very thing that is acting, a person. And this name was transferred from knowledge acquired by sense perception to that which takes place in the mind. For since we distinguish individual men from the rest of men by the appearance that is manifest to each, through the application of sight; for this reason, we have also called that which is separated from sharers of the same essence, by its own proper actions and characteristics, a person. And this is the definition of a person; it seems, however, in some way to signify the same thing ^C as hypostasis, or to differ little or nothing at all. With this having been foreknown by us, that essence is the same as nature, and hypostasis is the same as person, whatever is to be said about essence must also be applied to nature, and whatever is to be said about hypostasis, must also be applied to person.

CATHOLICUS. Learnedly have the Fathers defined these things, and have provided a distinct interpretation of them. But I also desired their authorities, so that I might know how those who theologize understand these things, so that we too might conduct our discourse according to their intent.

THEORIANUS. The teachers of the Church accept these things as your holiness said above; essence and nature concerning universals, but hypostasis and person concerning individuals.

CATHOLICUS. This specifically I seek to have shown to me from their authorities, and after this, God willing, we shall begin to hold the discussion for which we have come together.

THEORIANUS. Let this also be done since it seems so to you; ^D and let the truly most philosophical and divine Basil come into the middle. For he, writing to Terentius, says these things: "Concerning God, that essence and hypostasis are not the same thing, the brethren from the West, in my opinion, have themselves indicated. For fearing the narrowness of their own language, they transferred the name of essence to the Greek tongue, so that if there were any difference in meaning, it might be preserved in its clear and undistinguished distinct

^Aion of terms. But if it is necessary for us also to express our opinion in brief, we shall say this: whatever relation the common has to the particular, that same relation essence has to hypostasis. For each of us partakes of the common notion of essence for his being, and by his own properties is such and such an individual; thus also in that realm, let the notion of essence be understood as common—such as goodness, divinity, or whatever else you may think of—while hypostasis is contemplated in the property of paternity or of the sanctifying power. ^B The same divine man, writing to Amphilochius, the light of the most holy Church of Iconium, says similar things: "Substance and hypostasis have this difference, which the common has to the individual, for instance, as animal relates to a certain man." Therefore, we confess one substance of divinity, so that the notion of being is not rendered differently, but we call the hypostasis the singular, so that the conception concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit exists for us unconfused and distinct. For if we do not consider the notes that distinguish each—such as paternity, and sonship, and ^C sanctification—but confess God only from the common notion of being, it is impossible that the account of the faith should be rendered soundly. It is necessary, therefore, by adding the particular to the common, thus to confess the faith: the common is the divinity, the particular is the paternity; then, joining them, to say: "I believe in God the Father." And again in the confession of the Son, do likewise, and to the common join the particular, and say: "In God the Son." Similarly also concerning the Holy Spirit, shaping the utterance according to the sequence of the pronouncement, we should say: "I believe in the divine Holy Spirit," so that in every way the unity is preserved in the confession of divinity, and the particularity of the persons is confessed in the distinction of the properties contemplated ^D in each. Those who say that substance and hypostasis are the same are forced to confess persons only as different, and in refusing to say "three hypostases," they are found not to avoid the wickedness of Sabellius, who himself also, by confusing the notion in many places, endeavored to divide the persons, saying that the same hypostasis was transformed as the need required. But if anyone perhaps should think the testimonies of this most holy Father, taken from his letters, are not sufficient, we shall append others from his own particular exposition, which he composed on the faith, and induced that Armenian Eustathius to subscribe to it, who had cast upon himself the suspicion of a contrary opinion in the minds of some. In that exposition, Basil's words are these: "It is therefore fitting to confess clearly that they believe according to the words set forth by our Fathers at Nicaea, according to the sense soundly conveyed by the words. For there are some who, even in this very faith, commit fraud against the word of truth, drawing the mind of the words set forth therein according to their own will; since even Marcellus dared to impiously attack the hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching that He was a bare Word, and from there he presumed to profess

^A that he had received the principles, interpreting the meaning of "consubstantial" poorly. Likewise, some from the West, clinging to the impiety of the Libyan Sabellius, assuming that hypostasis and substance are the same, take from thence occasions to construct their own blasphemy, because it is written in the faith that if anyone says the Son of God is from another substance or hypostasis, the holy catholic Church anathematizes him. For they did not say there that substance and hypostasis are the same. For if the terms indicated one and the same concept, what need was there for both? But it is clear that it was because some denied that He was from the substance of the Father, while others said He was from another hypostasis. So that the one stands for the removal of a wicked opinion, while the other serves as a declaration of the saving dogma. But if it is necessary to provide testimonies from other holy men as well, let the great Gregory [Nazianzen], ^B who in his first compendium "On Theology" says these very words word-for-word, come forward: "When I say 'the middle,' I mean the truth, toward which alone it is good to look, avoiding both the base contraction and the more absurd division, so that our speech may not be forced into one hypostasis for fear of polytheism, leaving us with bare names, while supposing the same person to be Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit." And shortly after: "Since it is necessary both to preserve the one God and to confess the three hypostases, or three persons, each with its own property. I would hold, as my argument goes, that God is one, as referred to one cause of both the Son and the Spirit, being neither compounded nor mingled; both according to the one and same [nature] of divinity, if I may so call it, its movement and will, and the identity of substance; but the three hypostases [are to be held], with no mingling, resolution, or confusion being conceived. Otherwise, the whole might be destroyed by that through which the one is honored more than is proper." But also ^C in his syntactic discourse, this great and divine man says: "We believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, of the same substance and majesty, in whom also baptism has its perfection, both in names and in realities (you know these things, whoever has been initiated into them), for it is an abjuration of the impiety of denying God, and a confession of divinity. And thus we attain perfection, acknowledging one [God] regarding essence and individual adoration; but three regarding the hypostases, or persons, as some prefer to speak." And let not those who quarrel over these things behave unseemly, as if our piety consisted in names and not in realities. For what do you say, you who bring forward the three hypostases? Do you say this on the grounds of assuming three substances? I know that you will cry out ^D loudly against those who assume such a thing; for you teach one and the same essence for the three. But what of you who say "persons"? Do you imagine some composite thing, and three-faced, or entirely human-shaped? Far from it! You yourselves would shout back. Nor [do you mean] "person" in whatever way it might be, as if it were a shape of God, which is how it is. What then do the hypostases mean to us, or the persons to you? I will ask: that there are three things being divided, not by natures, but by properties. Very good!

How could some agree more, and be saying the same thing, even if they differ in the syllables used? Similarly, he says this again in the oration where he praises Athanasius, the light of the Church of Alexandria: "For when the one substance and the three hypostases were piously spoken of by us, ^B because the one declares the nature of the Godhead, and the other the properties of the three, they were understood by the Italians in the same way, but because of the narrowness of their language and the poverty of their terms, they could not distinguish the hypostasis from the essence, and for that reason introduced the name of 'persons' in its place, in order that three substances might not be admitted," and so on. Likewise, in the oration on the Lights, he says: "When I speak of God, I am surrounded by one and triple light: triple, indeed, as regards the properties, or hypostases—as some prefer to call them—or persons (for we do not contend about names, as long as the syllables tend toward the same meaning); but one, as regards the nature of the substance, that is, the Godhead." I think these most renowned teachers have sufficiently prescribed to us concerning the matters just proposed, namely, concerning substance and nature, and concerning hypostasis and person; and they have clearly handed down that the former have the signification of an universal thing, while the latter have that of a particular.

GEN. It is now time that you bring forward authorities, that we may discern the mind of the holy men concerning them. For as to substance and nature, and as to hypostasis and person, we are in agreement, differing in nothing at all. For we understood these even before they were mentioned by you; but we wished to hear from your own mouth what your opinion concerning them might be. Now therefore tell me, which of the holy Fathers posited two natures after the union?

THEOR. First, as being the first in time, it is fitting to bring forward the great Athanasius, whose very words these are in the letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth. Thus he writes word for word: "For from this it is possible for us to perceive the absurdity. If the Word is of the same substance as the body, which has its nature from the earth, and if the Word is consubstantial with the Father, according to the confession of the Fathers, ^D then the Father himself will be of the same substance as the body made from earth. And why do you feel indignation at the Arians, who say the Son is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of the same substance as the creatures?"

GEN. What does that statement have to do with us, philosopher?

THEOR. He strikes heavily at those who say there is one nature of the Word and the flesh. And see, I beseech you, with what admirable method the man of God, Athanasius, weaves his syllogism in the third figure. For it is already held as a confession that whatever is to be said concerning substance, the same must be accommodated to nature. Is this in confession, or is it not?

GEN. It is indeed entirely so.

THEOR. ^A Let us then substitute the name of "nature" for that of "substance," and say: If the Word is of the same nature as the body, which has its nature from the earth; and if the Word is of the same nature as the Father, according to the confession of the Fathers, then the Father Himself will also be of the same nature as the body that was made from the earth. Thus, for those who call the Word "consubstantial" (which is the same as saying "of the same nature") with the body, it follows that the Father is also consubstantial and of the same nature as the body. What could be more absurd than this? What, then, do we learn from this impossibility? That the Word is neither consubstantial nor of the same nature as the body. But if the Word is neither consubstantial nor of the same nature as the body, it is evident that He is of a different substance and a different nature; and if He is of a different nature, the nature of the Word is one thing, and the nature of the body is another. Therefore, Christ is not one nature. ^B But if we also consider the first proposition of the divine Athanasius, as it stands in its precision, which says: "If the Word is consubstantial with the body which has its nature from the earth, we shall find a very great treasure." For it is not in vain that "which has its nature from the earth" is set down.

GEN. You speak most correctly; but proceed with what follows.

THEOR. ^C Let the most holy Cyril also come forward, upon whom you rely more, to bear witness to our argument. In his first epistle to Successus he says: "It is equal, as far as absurdity is concerned, to say that the body was changed into the nature of the Divinity, and, conversely, that the Word was changed into the nature of the flesh. For just as this is impossible (since He is unchangeable and immutable), so also is the other. For nothing of created things can pass into the nature of the Divinity; and the flesh also is a creature." And clearly, in the epistle to Eulogius, both professing the two natures himself, and defending the most holy bishops of the East who were saying the same things, he says: "Some," he says, "took exception to the exposition which the orientals had made, and say: 'Why did the Alexandrian bishop endure or approve of those who speak of two natures?'" And after a little he says: "So also in the case of Nestorius; although he speaks of two natures, signifying the distinction between the flesh and the Word (for the nature of the Word is one thing, and that of the flesh is another), he does not, however, ^D acknowledge the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord; and hence, one nature of the Word incarnate." And after a little: "Therefore, to know the distinction of the two natures is not to divide the one Christ into two." And after another passage: "And let them not be ignorant of this: wherever mention is made of a union at all, the coition of one thing is not signified, but rather of two, or even more, and such as differ from one another by nature. Therefore, he who speaks of a union, clearly of flesh animated by a rational mind and the Word, and they who speak of two natures, understand it in this way. Yet, the union being acknowledged, the united things no longer differ from one another, but there is henceforth one Son, one nature of the Word Himself made flesh." Behold, in these words the Father of blessed memory, our Cyril, clearly says...

that to know the distinctness of the two natures is not to divide the one Christ into two. For this is what you fear; but blessed Cyril drives away this vain fear of yours. And in his second letter to Successus, the same Father appears to hold the same view, in which he says: "Therefore, considering the manner of the incarnation, we see that two natures have come together, one with the other, in a union without separation, without confusion, and without change. For the flesh is flesh, and not divinity, even though it has become the flesh of God. Likewise, the Word is God, and not flesh, even though He rendered the flesh His own by way of dispensation. When, therefore, we consider this, we do not err in saying that the union was fashioned from two natures. Yet, after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we divide one and indivisible Christ into two sons; rather, we speak of one Son, and as the Fathers have said, one incarnate nature of the Word. So far as we can perceive by the mind and the eyes of the soul alone in what manner the Only-Begotten became man, we say there are two natures, but one Christ, and Lord, and Son, the Word of God incarnate and made man. What could we seek that is clearer than this? For we say there are two natures."

Again, the same divine Cyril, in his explanation of the book of Leviticus, discoursing on the cleansing of leprosy, says: "Here again, everything contemplates for me the mystery of our Savior and the cleansing which is by holy baptism. He commands that two living and clean birds be taken, so that by these birds you may understand that heavenly man, who is man and God at once, divided into two natures (insofar as one speaks of the reason appropriate to each) — for the Word was He who shone forth from God in the flesh of the woman — yet not divided; for Christ is one out of both. For this reason, two birds are taken, and both are again understood as one. You see how everywhere the blessed Cyril confesses two natures? And indeed, in his second letter to Successus he says: 'Whoever says that the Lord suffered in the flesh alone makes the suffering irrational and involuntary. But if anyone says that He suffered with a rational soul, so that the suffering was voluntary, then nothing prevents one from saying that He suffered in the nature of humanity.' But if this is true, why shall we not concede that the two natures subsist after the union, without division? So that if anyone says 'Christ suffered for us in the flesh,' he says nothing other than 'Christ suffered for us in our nature.' You see how most clearly the blessed Cyril confesses two natures after the union? Let us look, if you will, at the great Gregory in matters divine. For he says in his discourse on the Son: 'God might be called [that], not of the Word, but of Him who was seen. For how could He be the God of the One who is truly God? Just as also "Father" is used not of Him who was seen, but of the Word; for He was twofold. Therefore, these things are spoken partly strictly of both, and partly not strictly, in a different manner, that is, than they possess in our case. For God is strictly our God, but not strictly our Father.' And this is what causes the error for the heretics, the

^A combining of these terms, with the words being interchanged on account of the coalition. The proof of this is: when natures are distinguished in our thoughts, the terms themselves are also distinguished simultaneously. Do you see that he calls Christ double? And again he says: "When natures are distinguished in our thoughts, the terms are also distinguished simultaneously." But let us also see the following. Listen to Paul speaking: "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory." * He is the God of Christ, but the Father of glory. For even if the composite is one, it is not so by nature, but by the union. Hear what he says: "For if the composite is one, it is not so by nature. If it is not one by nature, it remains entirely that they are two by nature." And in his second letter to Cledonius, the same man says explicitly: "There are two natures, God and man, just as there are soul and body; but not two sons, nor two gods; nor, indeed, are there here two men, even if Paul did designate the inner and outer part of man in this way." And if one must speak briefly, the things of which the Savior consists are one thing and another, if indeed the invisible is not the same as the visible, and the ^B timeless the same as that which is subject to time; but he is not one person and another person: God forbid. For both are one in the mixture, with God having become man, and man having been deified, or however else one might name it. I say "one thing and another" in the inverse of how it holds in the Trinity. For there, it is "one person and another person," so that we do not confuse the hypostases; but it is not "one thing and another thing," for the three are one, and the same in divinity. Do you see the precision of the theology? "One thing and another," he says, are the things of which the Savior consists. That is to say, one nature and another nature. For the word "other" (aliud), when placed in the neuter gender, is applied to nature; but "another" (alius) is applied to the hypostasis. And he makes this clear himself as he proceeds: "There," meaning in the divinity, "it is one person and another person, so that we do not confuse the hypostases; but not one thing and another thing, for the three are one ^C and the same in divinity." But he also says, proceeding further: "Just as the fact that all things were made through Christ, and that Christ dwells in our hearts, is not said according to that part of Christ which falls into the eyes, but according to that which is perceived by the intellect, with the natures—and thus also the names—being mingled, as it were, and interpenetrating one another by reason of the connaturality." It is enough to have brought forth these words from the great Gregory the Theologian. I shall demonstrate that the saintly Gregory, bishop of the Nyssaeans, was of the same opinion, in those things which he says in his work to Simplicius word for word as follows: "So that, since we recognize two things concerning Christ, the one divine and the other human—one being divine by nature, and one being human by dispensation—consequently, while acknowledging the eternal along with the divinity, we consider the created as being in the human ^D nature." You see how this divine man also says that we recognize two things concerning Christ, the one divine and the other human. Then he says, "The divine is one in nature." And proceeding, he adds: "The created is in the human nature." Behold, he confesses a divine nature in Christ, and a human nature alike. But even if...

^A in Basil's book and Basil's book in the one to Eunomius teaches the same things, he says: "The mediator of God and men, just as the great Apostle named him, nothing so demonstrates this as the name of the Son, accommodated equally to both natures, the divine and the human." For he is the same, both Son of God, and became Son of man by the Economy. Do you see how he confesses two natures, divine and human? It is possible to see him doing the same things in the fourth discourse of the same treatise. Everywhere, he says, when the Apostle proclaims the blending of the human with the divine, he none the less perceives the proper characteristic in each. Here he has also arranged for us the things pertaining to the proper characteristics of each nature, as things existing and being taken by contemplation. Then, proceeding, after a little he says: "And so that no one might attribute the passion on the cross to the impassible nature, by other, clearer means he corrects such an error by calling him mediator of God and men, and God, so that from the two being said of the one, what is appropriate might be understood concerning each." Most clearly ^B here he says two things are said of the one, namely, the natures.

Similarly, in his second discourse on the Son, the same man more clearly hands down to us that the properties of the two natures are preserved even after that ineffable emptying. "For we believe," he says, "in one God, the Father unbegotten, and in one begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and with us according to the flesh: not two, but one Son, with the properties of the natures being preserved." But even the great Ambrose, having taken up the high priesthood of Milan, writing to Apollinaris, says thus: "Let us preserve the distinction of flesh and divinity. One Son speaks in both, since each nature is in him; but even if the same one speaks, he does not speak in one way only." For you see in him now indeed the majesty of God, now however the passions of man. And what he says is consistent with things already said also in the second book to Gratian Augustus. "The man Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, is said to have been crucified, because he is a sharer of both natures, that is, human and divine." But also in the book to Sabinus the bishop, the same most holy man says: ^D "While he was in the property of divinity, he emptied himself, and received the fullness and perfection of human nature: just as nothing was lacking to God, so neither to human completion; that he might be perfect in each nature."

CATHOLICUS. I indeed think that many years ago it was your care to collect books, and to excerpt the authorities of holy men concerning the two natures.

THEORIANUS. Those truly require much care and

^A inventiveness, as they are rare and difficult to find. But concerning the two natures, there is no scarcity, but rather an excessive abundance and plenty in the whole of Holy Scripture, as vast as the diffusion of the air. If, therefore, there is need for more, I am ready to bring forward others. Presently, indeed, we may hear from the great philosopher and martyr Justin, who speaks of the same things in his work *On the Trinity*, in the seventeenth chapter: "When you hear contrary sayings about the one Son, distinguish what is said according to the natures; if it is anything great and divine, attribute it to the divine nature; but if it is anything lowly and human, refer it to the human nature. For thus you will escape the discord of the expressions, as each nature receives what is proper to it; and you will acknowledge the Son as one, both before all ages and as recently born, according to the Holy Scriptures." And this is what the divine Justin says. ^B John, golden of tongue, in his interpretation of the Epistle to Timothy, says thus: "The mediator is a participant of both, of whom he is the mediator. For this is the role of a mediator, to partake of each one, of whom he is the mediator." And a little later: "If, therefore, he does not partake of the nature of the Father, he is not a mediator, but is separated from Him. For just as he partakes of the nature of men, because he came to men, so too [he partakes] of the nature of God, because he came from God." In agreement with these holy Fathers, that holy, great, and universal Synod which was gathered at Chalcedon by the will of God and the pious decree of the ^C emperors, dogmatized that one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, is to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one hypostasis; not divided or split into two persons, but one and the same Son, Only-begotten, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.

CATHOLICUS. Altogether, to speak of two natures introduces a certain appearance of division; and I fear, lest in avoiding Eutyches' error of speaking of one nature, we fall into the abyss of Nestorius, by introducing two persons because of the two natures. ^D THEORIANUS. But Nestorius spoke of two natures separated, not united into one person. And the saintly Cyril, revealing this in the letter he wrote to Eulogius, says: "So it is also in the case of Nestorius. Although he says 'two natures,' signifying the difference between the flesh and the Word of God (for the nature of the Word is one thing, and that of the flesh another), he does not, however, acknowledge the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word." You, therefore, heed the admonition of that wise Solomon: do not turn to the right, nor to the left, but walk the middle and royal path. For there are four heresies fighting against each other from opposite directions: two concerning the divinity, and two concerning

human nature. In the divinity, Sabellius used to say that there is one nature and one hypostasis; but Arius, three hypostases and three natures, diverse and alien to one another. We, however, neither confound the three into one, lest we suffer the disease of Sabellius, nor divide them into three wild and alien things, lest we be maddened by the errors of Arius; but we proclaim one nature in three hypostases. ^B Again, concerning the incarnation of the Word of God, Nestorius and Eutyches fought against each other, as it were, from opposite directions. For Nestorius used to say there were two separated natures, and two persons, and two Christs, and two Sons; but Eutyches, one nature and one hypostasis. We, however, say one hypostasis, one Christ, one Son in two perfect natures—in divinity, I say, and in humanity—united inseparably and without confusion. Walk, therefore, on the middle and royal path, as we said (as the Theologian Gregory says: "When I say 'the middle,' I mean the truth, to which alone if we look, we act rightly"), and do not fear the number *two*. For just as, when we speak of three hypostases in the divinity, we do not make a division of nature, so also in this dispensation, when we say there are two natures, we do not make a division of hypostasis. And this is what the Theologian Gregory says in his second letter to Cledonius: "I say *one thing and another* (aliud atque aliud), and the reverse is the case in the Trinity." For there, it is *one and another* (alius atque alius), so that we may not confound the hypostases; but not *one thing and another* (aliud atque aliud), because the three are one and the same in respect to divinity. Examine well every sequence of the words of this holy theologian. "I say," he says, "in Christ, *one thing and another*." For "one thing" (aliud), placed in the neuter gender, signifies nature; and thus he says that there is one nature and another in Christ. But "one" (alius) signifies hypostasis. Therefore, he added: "Not one and another" (non alius atque alius). Observe also the [phrase], "and the reverse is the case in the Trinity." For in the Trinity there is one nature, but not likewise one hypostasis; but in Christ, there is one hypostasis, but not likewise ^C one nature. And this is the "reverse." For there, there is one nature and three hypostases; but here, one hypostasis and two natures.

These things having been said, the most pious bishop Gregory, the cousin of the most holy Catholicos, exclaimed with a loud voice: "I am a Roman; anathema to him who does not speak of two natures in Christ!"

On the following day, the most pious bishop of Sappir arrived; and the Catholicos communicated with him privately, apart from us, concerning the matters that had been discussed regarding the proposed question. He also showed him all the authorities of the holy men he possessed, who spoke of two natures in Christ. But he, being learned, perverted them to his own will. Therefore, when the Catholicos found him resisting and struggling against him very strongly, he summoned us and said to us: "The present bishop, Peter, wishes to converse with you concerning the middle between us and

your proposition." For he alleged that the holy Cyril speaks of one nature after the union. ^A

THEOR. Where, Lord Bishop, does the holy Cyril say this?

EPISC. In the second epistle to Succensus, against those who say: "If one nature has come to be after the union, it is necessary for Him to suffer in His own nature." He says precisely in these words: "What, then, is the necessity for Him to suffer in His own nature if, after the union, one nature of the Word incarnate is spoken of?" Do you see that he speaks of one nature after the union?

THEOR. And what is this "own nature" of the Son in which it is not necessary for Him to have suffered?

EPISC. The divinity of the Son.

THEOR. Then the Son did not suffer in His own nature? ^B

EPISC. God forbid! For the divine nature is not of such a kind as to be able to suffer.

THEOR. Yet Christ truly suffered, did He not?

EPISC. Yes, but in our nature; for this is of a kind that can suffer.

THEOR. Therefore Christ had two natures, one which was of a kind to suffer, and one which was not of a kind to suffer.

With the mouth of the most pious Peter thus stopped, the aforementioned most pious bishop Gregory arose and said: "I am a Roman, and I think as the Romans do." ^C

And after two days, we were again summoned and went up into the upper room to the most holy Catholicos; and when we were seated, he said to all: "There is no ambiguity at all in speaking of two natures in Christ, if we confess that these are united inseparably into one hypostasis, as the holy Cyril says in his first epistle to Succensus. 'As far as we are able, by the mind and the eyes of the soul alone, to see in what way the Only-Begotten became man, we say there are two natures united, but one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God having become man and incarnate.' And moreover, all those luminaries of the Church, whose testimonies the philosopher earlier produced, ^D cry out this very thing. Therefore, to contend against things that are manifest, clear, and true is not the work of a Christian man. And concerning these, there is no need henceforth to labor. But what prevents us from confessing both two natures in the one Christ, and one nature, on account of the union of the natures which is free from division and separation? For we find the holy Cyril in his second epistle to Succensus speaking thus clearly: 'For the term one is not truly used only of those things which are simple by nature, but also of those which are joined together by composition. Such a thing is man, consisting of soul and body. For these are of different forms, and not of the same substance with one another; but being united, they constitute one nature of man. Since, therefore, from

of body and soul, which are of different natures, a single nature of man is completed and spoken of; it is not absurd, I think, to say that from the divinity and humanity of Christ, one nature is completed and spoken of. Solve this, and we shall be satisfied.

THEOR. ^A It would have been sufficient for your great holiness to have perceived that one must not speak of one nature in Christ after the union, by the authority of the holy man, Gregory the Theologian, which is brought to us and which exists in his second oration on the Son, and contains words of this kind: "For although the combination is one, yet it is not so by nature, but by union." Since, therefore, he says "But not by nature one," he clearly prevents one from speaking of the combined elements as "one by nature" in the union. What clearer proof than this do you require?

GEN. The text in the Armenian Scripture does not have it so.

THEOR. Then your book is faulty. ^B Soon Theorianus, who had a Syriac interpretation of that passage excerpted, handed it to the General, saying: “Read, master.” The General, having summoned one of those who knew how to read Syriac, ordered it to be read, and found it written just as Theorianus had said. Therefore Theorianus said: “Does this suffice, master, or do you require another authority? For I, indeed, do not know Syriac, but I found it so written in the books of the Syrians at Censuvium; and I rejoiced greatly when I found this.”

GEN. ^C Since the text in the Armenian Scripture does not have it thus, I wish to be convinced from elsewhere that we ought to confess two natures in Christ after the union, and not one.

THEOR. That is very easy to see for one who does not wish to act maliciously.

GEN. May it never be my lot to act maliciously, especially in divine matters; nor to any other who wishes to live according to Christ’s command; but I desire to be confirmed, so that I may not pronounce a judgment inconsiderately and by way of deception.

THEOR. Do you confess that the natures are united without mutation or alteration?

GEN. ^D Entirely. For that holy father Cyril, in his letter to Successus, says thus: “For it is equal, as far as the absurdity is concerned, to say that the body was changed into the nature of the divinity, and that the Word was changed into the nature of the flesh. For just as the latter is impossible (for He is immutable and free from alteration), so too is the former. For it is not among the things that can happen that any of the creatures could pass over into the essence or nature of the divinity. And the flesh is also a creature.”

THEOR. You have relieved us of the labor, having brought forward Saint Cyril as a witness to our doctrine. For if it is not possible for any created thing to pass over into the substance or nature of the divinity, and the flesh itself is a creature, say yourself what is concluded from this.

GEN. I do not know what this is. What is it that you conclude?

THEOR. That the flesh and the Word are not one nature.

^B THEOR. That example of our composition was taken by Saint Cyril for this purpose alone: to show that it is possible for one hypostasis to come to be from two and different natures, just as from soul and body, for instance, Peter or Paul. For since he was fighting against Nestorius, who said that it was impossible for one hypostasis to be made from different natures, and for this reason foolishly divided the one and indivisible Christ into two Christs and two Sons, he brought in the example of man to show that, just as man is one from soul and body, so Christ is one from divinity and humanity. ^C And if you wish, let us also state the reason why, in the case of man, who is composed of soul and body, one nature is said to exist. For we say, "Christ renewed the nature of men," we do not say "the natures." But also when the divine Fathers say "two natures" in regard to Christ, they take the soul and the body as one nature. But in regard to Christ, it is forbidden to say "one nature."

GEN. I desire to learn first by whom it is forbidden to say "one nature" in regard to Christ, and then we shall hear the reason why this is forbidden, if you please; for to me it does not seem that it has been forbidden by any of the holy Fathers.

THEOR. By the fact that they say "two natures," it is understood that it is not one. For if two, not one; and if one, not two.

GEN. Do you say it is forbidden only from this, from their saying "two," or do you also have testimonies that expressly forbid this? ^D

THEOR. It ought to have been enough for you from this. But I have also testimonies of great saints that expressly forbid this. And although the testimony of the Theologian, which says: "For even if the composite is one, yet not in nature," I think I shall pass over, because you say that it is not written thus in the Armenian book; I shall bring forward that holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan, speaking thus explicitly in the book against Apollinarius: "Others have arisen, saying that the flesh of the Lord and the divinity are of one nature. Which hell vomited forth such a blasphemy?" The same thing is also cried out by the divine Gregory of Nyssa, in the book which he himself also wrote against Apollinarius, saying: "If therefore among the opposites

the nature of one of these is viewed ^A by properties—of the flesh, I say, and of the divinity—how are two, one?" The divine Chrysostom also says, in his epistle to Acacius the monk: "I call the Son one person, the two combined, which nevertheless may be recognized without confusion and without division; I say, not in one nature alone, but in two perfect natures." What do you say to these things?

GEN. This is not the time for declaring my opinion, but only for training. But when the time comes, I will declare what I think with the proper caution and accurate judgment. But if you please, fulfill your promise.

THEOR. To whom?

GEN. State the reason why it is forbidden to say one nature in Christ.

THEOR. Of those things of which there is one nature, the definition ^B is also common, and those things of which the definition is common, their existence is also of the same substance. But the divinity of Christ is never of the same substance as his human nature: therefore, the definition of these is never one. And that because the definition is never one, their natures always differ from one another, is clear to everyone. For just as an affirmation is opposed to a negation, so to say that Christ is two natures is opposed to saying that he is one nature. But an affirmation and a negation are never simultaneously true regarding the same subject. Therefore, two are never one. And if it pleases you, let us examine the proposed theorem in a way more suited to logical discipline.

GEN. It pleases me entirely.

THEOR. Whatever exists, if it is one and many, it is not one according to that by which it is many: but if it is one and many, it is one according to one thing, and many according to another. Now I call many, things that are more than one; as for example we see in the holy Trinity, which is one and many: one in nature, many in persons. Therefore, in respect of one thing it is one, and in respect of another it is many. It is impossible, therefore, that it be ^C many in that respect in which it is one, or one in that respect in which it is many. For if it were possible, let the divinity be one thing according to its hypostases (but this is impossible), or conversely let it be many according to its substance; but this also is impossible. So too regarding Christ, it is acknowledged that he is one thing according to his hypostasis. Again, it is acknowledged, according to the authorities of the holy Fathers, that Christ is two [ natures ] with respect to [ his ] natures. Therefore it is impossible that he be one with respect to his natures. Whatever therefore exists, if it is one and many, it is one in respect of one thing, and many in respect of another: which was to be demonstrated, to speak in the manner of geometers. For by geometric necessities, as you call them, the theorem has been demonstrated.

GEN. I say one nature with respect to the indivisible union, so that Christ may not be divided ^D into two Christs.

THEOR. Which nature then do you say? The divine, or

human? Or another besides these? Neither divine nor ^A human? GEN. I call it one composite nature from divinity and humanity.

THEOR. If you speak of one composite nature, you introduce a change and confusion of the natures from which the one composite nature was made. And let us examine, if you please, the matter proposed by one of the composite natures: This piece of wood is entirely of one composite nature. For it consists of earth and water and fire and air, and is now one nature composed of these. But a change and alteration of the natures from which it was made preceded it; and now it neither is, nor is it called, anything of those natures of which it is composed: for it is not fire, nor is it so called, nor is anything else of those which came together into its composition. But in the Savior there is no such thing, but the natures have remained immutable and unalterable, coming together by an indivisible union to the completion of one hypostasis. ^B And even now, each of those that have come together both is and is called immutable; wherefore the same one is and is also called perfect God and perfect man. For no mixture or change or confusion of those that came together for the composition of Emmanuel preceded them. Therefore, no composite nature can be Christ. For this is what naturally happens in the case of wood and other such things.

GEN. Why do the holy Fathers everywhere, up and down, as they say, bring forward that example of man for the dispensation of the Savior, if it does not preserve the likeness of that of which it is an example? ^C THEOR. Those holy men bring forward that example of ourselves to explain that mystery concerning Emmanuel, to demonstrate that Christ is one and not two, as Nestorius used to say, as has been indicated above, although the example itself does not hold in the other.

GEN. You allow as much of this example as seems to be of use to your purpose, but you reject as much as is contrary to it.

THEOR. Quite rightly so. For this is the custom of holy Scripture in doing things by examples. For the Savior says somewhere to His own disciples: *Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men* (Matt. iv, 19). If, therefore, we were to observe the example in all respects, we should say that the apostles drew men from life to death. For this is what a fisherman does; he draws fish to their destruction. But let it be far from us to think that way concerning Christian matters! And elsewhere, the Scripture says concerning Christ: *He lay down, he slept as a lion, and as a lion's whelp: who shall raise him up?* (Gen. xlix, 9). Therefore, if we do not accept such things in a godly manner, and direct them to the aim of holy Scripture, and interpret them only by referring them to the point to which they pertain, we shall slip not only into absurdities, but also into infinite ^D insults.

^A

GEN. You speak most wisely. But just as you say that this example of man is used by the holy Fathers only to show that, just as one man consists of soul and body, so Christ is one, consisting of divinity and humanity; so I too may say that they use this example of man to show that, just as soul and body have constituted one nature of man, as holy Cyril says, so also from divinity and humanity one nature has been constituted, and neither in man did a change of the subsequently combined natures follow, nor in Christ.

THEOR. If it had not been forbidden by the holy Fathers to speak of one nature in Christ after the union, perhaps someone might have dared to interpret the example as you do, even though the nature of things itself does not allow it to be taken in that way, as shall be demonstrated. But now that such and so many holy men have forbidden this as sacrilegious (what hell, says the divine Ambrose, could have vomited forth such a blasphemy?), to accept it as pious is the mark of a man possessed of no mind or reason. ^B

GEN. You said above that the very nature of things does not permit it to be taken in that way. What, then, is the impediment? And in what way is the nature of things opposed in these matters?

THEOR. Nature is spoken of in regard to universals and commonalities, not in regard to particulars and individuals. Therefore, "man" is a universal. For it is predicated of Peter and Paul and all men individually. Wherefore it is also called one nature. For all men consist of a rational soul and body, and they receive the definition of man, which is: A rational, mortal animal. And a definition reveals the nature of the underlying subject. For this reason, individuals do not have their own definition. But Christ is not a universal, nor is he a commonality; for he is one hypostasis, one person, and as it were an individual. ^C For there are not other Christs, consisting of divinity and humanity, so that it might be predicated of them. Therefore, there cannot be one nature. For it is impossible to find a particular and individual nature; but every nature is universal and is spoken of in regard to many. For the divine nature is at once predicated of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit; and the nature of angels of Michael, and Gabriel, and the rest; and the nature of men of Socrates and Plato and the individual men. Similarly, ox and horse and suchlike are predicated of all the individuals under them. Since, therefore, nature is something universal, and Christ is not something universal, it is manifest that rightly thinking men will never say "one nature." Since, therefore, it is forbidden both by the nature of things themselves and by the holy men, it seems to me, at least for the present, not only ^D superfluous, but also overly bold to speak of one nature in Christ.

GEN. My mind, however, is struck by the authority of Cyril, when he says: One nature of the Word incarnate.

^A For many times, reflecting within myself, I could not understand for what reason he spoke of one nature of the incarnate Word. Therefore, my mind, agitated, as I said, and searching for rest by walking back and forth, so to speak, finally agrees, saying: If he did not wish to declare that after the union there is one nature of the Word and the flesh, he would not have said this. For he did not speak of two natures of the Word out of any of the heretics, so that this divine man might speak of one nature of the Word against their opinion.

THEOR. Perhaps you have not read the fourth book of the great Athanasius against the Arians; for if you had read it, your mind would not be experiencing any agitation. For it is possible to learn from it that Arius taught two natures of the Word, one created and the other uncreated. For in this book, that great luminary of the world, Athanasius, says: The blessed Alexander cast Arius out of the Church for uttering these blasphemies: God the Father is not eternal, the Son was not always, and he is from nothing, and he is a creature, and he has a beginning of existence. For whenever God wished to create us, then he made him for our sake; and from the time he was made, he called him Word, and Wisdom, and Son. Word, because of the rational beings which he created by his word; Wisdom, for the sake of those who are instructed; Son, for the sake of those whom he adopted. He added also that there is another Word in the Father by nature and proper to his own substance, in whom he made this one; and that by nature he is subject to change, and that by participation, just like just men, he is called God, being meanwhile alien to the nature of God. Just as the caterpillar and the locust are called the power of God, so also is he. And that the Father is invisible to the Son; for the Son, since he has a beginning, cannot perfectly know the one who is without beginning. And not only do we not know the nature of the Father accurately, but not even our own. He also babbled other things of this kind. These things, then, are from the great Athanasius. But let us also say, having culled from various Fathers, where he confirmed his own delusion. For in proving this, namely, that the Word who is in the Father is distinct, being implanted and proper to his own substance, he says that Christ said to the Jews: I know the Father, and I keep his word, ^B understanding that word whom he himself called implanted; not perceiving that Christ here called the will of the Father "word." Furthermore, he said that the Father spoke these words to the Son: From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you. And elsewhere to the people, on account of the Jordan: This is my beloved Son. And similarly at the transfiguration. Then he says: If the Father was speaking to the Son through the Word, the Word would necessarily be someone other than the Son. Therefore, the great Athanasius, struggling against this opinion, said that the nature of the Word is one incarnate, and not one that is uncreated and proper to the substance of God, and another that is created and alien to it. From thence ^C

^A the blessed Cyril, having adopted this expression, said that there is one nature of the Word incarnate. And this is what he says, just as the Fathers said: calling the great Athanasius "Fathers" and the rest, those who stood in array against that impious Arius.

GEN. You have profited me greatly, brother; for I did not know that any of the heretics had said this. And now my mind has found rest, having heard the utterances of the great Athanasius.

THEOR. You have, most saintly lord, many testimonies of saintly men regarding the fact that we ought both to believe and to confess two natures in Christ; and that one ought not to speak of one nature in him. Moreover, you have also heard the reason why the Fathers said that there is one nature incarnate. Do not, therefore, cause us further trouble, but let the confession of "one nature" in Christ ^B begone to the crows. For no small scandal arises from this. Your great holiness is not ignorant that the divine Fathers sometimes judged a term, which was not itself evil, yet which was nevertheless evilly understood and interpreted by some, to be worthy of rejection. Such is the term "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer), applied to the Theotokos (God-bearer). For we could indeed have called the Theotokos "Christotokos." For she gave birth to Christ, God and man; for this is what the name properly denotes. But because the meaning of the name was wickedly seized upon by Nestorius, the name was rejected by the saints as blasphemous. You ought, therefore, most saintly lord, to let go as blasphemous that term which has been judged by the saints to be blasphemous (what hell vomited forth such blasphemy? says the divine Ambrose?), and not esteem your own judgment to be firmer than theirs, nor allow your judgment to provide an occasion of scandal to many.

GEN. You speak rightly. But give me the definition of the faith of the fourth synod. And when we had given the definition to him, we departed to settle ourselves for rest.

On the following day, the bishop of Cissus, John the Syrian, arrived; and having learned that the Catholicos of the Armenians, after having frequently held colloquy with the Romans, ^C assents to their words, and now agrees with them in all things (for he praises, as others said, the things which are spoken by them, saying that they speak nothing to us outside of the holy Scriptures, but that they construct their own argument from those holy Fathers whom we also revere), he went up to the Catholicos, and says to him: What is this, lord, that I hear concerning your great holiness? Do you assent to the Romans who advocate the errors of Nestorius?

GEN. I do not assent to the Romans. Nay, I would not have obeyed either the Patriarch of Constantinople, or the most excellent Emperor himself, superior to all, either on account of patriarchal dignity or imperial majesty, unless I myself had recognized the truth. But I cannot deny the truth, nor can I oppose the holy Fathers.

The SYRIAN replied to the Catholicos: I have heard that you also confessed two ^D natures in Christ. You know, indeed, that we follow the opinion of Nestorius, if we confess two natures,

^A and we shall have a quaternity instead of the Trinity, on account of the accession of another nature. GEN. Yesterday, and the day before, and nearly all this week, we have laboured greatly, conversing daily. Today, however, and tomorrow, we wish to rest and unbend our minds. After three days, if it pleases you, be present with us in the discussion; and whatever occurs to your mind, say it, and we shall gladly hear it.

But when evening had overtaken them, the teacher Bartan came to Theorianus, without the knowledge of the Catholicos, and said to him: That Syrian bishop and our Catholicos have discoursed the whole day today concerning the one nature and the two. Then Theorianus said to the teacher Bartan: I would like to know what those things are which that Syrian said in proof of his own dogma. Bartan replied: He brought forward nothing else to our Catholicos up and down ^B save this: That if we say two natures in Christ, we shall not only be Nestorians, but we shall also confess a quaternity instead of the Trinity in the Godhead, on account of the accession of another nature. Then Theorianus said to Bartan: By what proofs did he demonstrate this? And Bartan said: He did not prove his speech by authorities, nor by syllogisms, but only poured out confused words so contentiously and inconsiderately, that he seemed to his priests to be saying something. Then Theorianus, questioning Bartan: What, said he, did the Catholicos say to these things? He said, answered Bartan, that all this week we have laboured greatly, having daily conversations: and now for some days we must remit our labours. But when we begin the discussion again, he said, be present with us yourself, if it pleases you, and say whatever occurs to your mind, and we shall gladly hear it.

And after some days, being summoned, we went up into the upper room where we had ^C previously conversed. We found that Syrian bishop sitting on the right side of the Catholicos, and the Armenian bishops each in his own place. And when we had been ordered to sit on the left side of the Catholicos, according to custom, and then the bishops had sat down (for they offered us the first places in the gathering), for a long time no one said anything at all to another about any matter, ^D but there was a common silence. When, therefore, a great deal of time had passed, Theorianus addressed the Catholicos with these words:

I have heard that there are some who say that if we confess two natures in Christ, not only shall we be Nestorians, but we shall also proclaim a quaternity instead of the Trinity. And I indeed wonder how those who say these things could not perceive that Nestorius was not deposed because he said two natures (for this the divine Fathers all proclaim with a bright and clear voice; Cyril indeed in these words: We say there are two natures; and Gregory the Theologian: Two natures, God and man; and all the rest, whom I produced to you as witnesses before): but because of saying

that the natures are two, separated from one another, the divine ^A separately, and likewise the human separately. For this reason, that fanatic also used to assert that there were two sons and two Christs: babbling that one Son exists who is from God and the Father, and another who is from the Virgin. On account of this, he was also unwilling to call the holy Virgin Theotokos. But that Nestorius did not in the least confess the union, the holy Cyril shows in his letter to Eulogius, writing in these very terms: "Thus also in the case of Nestorius; although he says there are two natures, indicating the distinction of the flesh and the Word of God—for the nature of the Word is one thing, and that of the flesh is another—yet he does not confess the union with us. For we, having joined these, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord."

But concerning the assertion that the Trinity will be a quaternity if we confess two natures in Christ, the holy man Athanasius will suffice for our defense, whose words in his letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, are these: "They will be greatly shamed, who even by mere thought imagined that it is possible for a quaternity to come to be instead of a Trinity, if the body is said to be from Mary. For if we say that the body is of ^B one substance with the Word," he says, "the Trinity remains a Trinity, and nothing foreign is introduced into it. But if we say that the body from Mary is human, then, as the body is foreign in substance, it is necessary that an addition be made." By saying these things, they do not perceive how they subvert themselves. For even if they do not say the body is from Mary, but is of the same substance with the Word, nevertheless, what they pretend to fear—lest they seem to think this—will be shown to be, according to their own conception, the very thing they are saying: namely, a quaternity. For just as the Son, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, being consubstantial with the Father, is not the Father himself, but the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father; so also that body consubstantial with the Word will not be the Word himself, but something other than the Word. And if it is something other, then according to them the holy Trinity will be a quaternity. For the ^C true, and truly perfect and indivisible Trinity does not admit of any addition, but that Trinity is the one invented by them. And how will they be Christians who invent another god besides the true God?

Again, in their other sophism, it is possible to perceive their foolishness. If, because the human body of the Savior is and is said in the Holy Scriptures to be from Mary, they think that a quaternity is spoken of instead of a Trinity, as if an addition were made because of the body; they are indeed greatly deceived by equating the creature with the Creator, and imagining that anything can be added to the Godhead; and they are ignorant that the Word became flesh not in order that something might be added to the Godhead, but that He might redeem the human race. How, then, do they imagine that the body assumed and vivified by the Word makes an addition to the Godhead in the Word? For rather, to that which was human a great addition came through the fellowship and union ^D of the Word with it. For from mortal it became immortal, and from animal it became spiritual, and that which was born of the earth ascended above the heavenly gates. The Trinity, however, also upon the Word taking a body from Mary,

^A admits of no addition, nor subtraction; but is always perfect, and one Godhead is known in the Trinity. And thus in the Church the Father of the Word is preached as one God. You have heard how the blessed Athanasius, breathing divine zeal, attacks ^B those who say the body is of the same substance as the Word. "They shall blush," he says. And again: "They do not understand how they fall into their own traps." And elsewhere: "It is possible to discern their foolishness." And he calls them senseless and mindless. But these things, indeed, the holy Athanasius says. We shall, however, refute their impiety in another way, if it pleases you.

GEN. To me, meanwhile, it seems that there is no need for further refutation for the recognition of such a slip. For the man who is unwilling to be persuaded by the holy Athanasius—if indeed he happens to be in the lot of Christians—after he has so loudly decried the madness of those who prattle that the body is of the same substance as the Word, and who dream of a quaternity instead of a Trinity coming to be in the Godhead, I do not know by whom among mortals currently on earth he will be convinced. Yet since many either do not read the divine Scriptures at all, or they read them, but perfunctorily and not carefully, and for this reason are ignorant of the meaning deep within them; if it seems good to you, and you are able to refute their error in another way, you will be doing well, and what is pleasing to God, and grateful and satisfying to us.

THEOR. Many have been disciples, or rather instruments, of the malevolent and misanthropic Satan for the destruction of many; such was the god-driven Severus, who held the throne of Antioch tyrannically, ^C who, not fearing the command which says, "Cursed is he who misleads the blind on the road," led the majority astray from the path of piety and miserably cast them headlong into the pit of destruction, when he ought to have done the opposite: to turn them back from error to the truth. For his bishopric demanded this of him. ^D But, having rejected the commandments of God from his ears and, much more, from his heart—commandments which proceed in this manner: "Enter through my gates, and pave a road for the people, and remove the stones from the way"—he took pains, not for the building up of that living temple, but rather for the ruin and stumbling block of many, to scatter stones in the way of life through infamy, and so, by words and writings, he dogmatized one nature for Emmanuel; foolishly fearing that the Trinity might become a quaternity instead of a Trinity; not understanding, as he appears, the wretch, that the term "Trinity" is not indicative of nature, but of the number of persons or hypostases. How, therefore, did he collect a quaternity, when we do not at all confess that the Word of God assumed a hypostasis, but rather that He constituted our nature within Himself? And we dogmatize that Emmanuel is one hypostasis and one Son? But if that new and empty theologian confesses three natures in the holy Trinity, then

^A by adding to them the human nature which we confess to be in Emmanuel, he concludes that a quaternity comes into existence instead of a Trinity; and he does this most excellently. For he artfully and skillfully separates himself from the one sole God, and is cast out into polytheism. But if he himself also confesses one nature of the Godhead, and two natures in Christ, I do not know from where a quaternity of natures creeps into his argument. But as for a quaternity of hypostases, without the addition of another hypostasis, to conceive of the Trinity is impossible.

These things having been said, the General cast his eyes upon that Syrian bishop. And when he saw him with his gaze fixed upon the ground, and in no way looking up, he turned to Theorianus and gestured to him to look at the Syrian. He, having looked at the Syrian, smiled, and said to the General: ^B "Master, I have a question to put to your Eminence, and I beg that it may not be burdensome to you to indicate its solution to me."

GEN. "If God grants me the understanding of it, I shall not be reluctant to explain it to you."

THEOR. "Let there be here, as in a hypothesis, three pieces of bullion, which are of one nature, namely of gold. If, then, I cast one of these into the fire, that which is ignited will clearly be of two natures—I mean, of fire and of gold. Then, having united this with the other two not yet ignited, I ask: how many are these pieces of bullion? Three, as before? Or have they become four on account of the nature of the fire?"

GEN. "Let John, the most religious bishop of Caesarea, explain the solution to this question."

THEOR. "What indeed does your Eminence’s prudence say? Has the nature of the fire increased the number, ^C or quantity, of those three, or not?"

GEN. "To me, indeed, it seems that it has not increased it."

THEOR. "And yet, previously these three were of one nature, but now in the one, two natures are observed."

GEN. "This also is admitted."

THEOR. "There is no necessity, therefore, for the trinity of those pieces of bullion to become a quaternity on account of that other nature, namely that of the fire?"

GEN. "There is no necessity."

THEOR. "They talk nonsense, therefore, who say that it is necessary for us to confess a quaternity instead of a Trinity if we admit two natures in Christ."

These things having been said, that Syrian bishop, rising, went out of the upper room ^D with his priests, having uttered no word. But being asked by his own priests why he had spoken nothing with the philosopher, he said that it was not permitted for him to speak of such matters in a foreign synod without the mandate of his patriarch.

Then arose Stephen the teacher and said: "I ask your Eminence to listen to me for a short while." And when it was permitted to him to speak, he said: "A certain schoolmaster began to educate a little boy, and said to him: 'Say Alpha.' But he was unwilling to say it. And again the schoolmaster said to him: 'Say Alpha.' But he in like manner

^A kept silent. Then the schoolmaster, becoming angry, says to the little boy: 'Why do you not speak?' And he said, 'I fear to say Alpha, lest you then force me to say the rest as well.' I use the same reply. For if we confess two natures in Christ, we must necessarily also speak of two energies and two wills; and thus the one Christ will be willing and not willing the same thing and act, and there will be a kind of battle within the one subject against himself, which no one would say is becoming or even probable to happen to any ordinary man.

THER. O doctor, we do not even for a moment permit ourselves to hear from one who claims two wills opposed to one another and two energies at variance with each other in the one Christ. For the Word, having become incarnate, possessed the natural faculty of willing as a human, being moved and shaped by the same divine will, not ^B opposing it. For the willing of him, says the divine Gregory, was not at all contrary to God, as it was entirely deified. And if it was deified, it was deified clearly by consubstantiality with that which deified it; the deifying and the deified are two surely, yet not one, since the deifying and the deified are relative terms. But relative terms are by nature brought into existence with one another, and each is conceived together with the other. The Savior, therefore, possessed a natural will as a human, conformed to the same divine will, not opposing it; for the natural is not at all contrary to the Divine, otherwise the Creator must be blamed for having created that which opposes nature.

Stephanus the doctor said: But to affirm two wills in a single hypostasis is among the impossible and inexplicable and incredible things. For how can the one be divided ^C against himself?

THEOR. Do you confess that Christ hungered and thirsted and grew weary and toiled, as being in truth a human, or not?

THE DOCTOR. Why not? Being a human, in truth, and not in phantasy, he had these things.

THEOR. Therefore, being hungry, he wanted to eat, and being thirsty, he wanted to drink, and being drowsy, he wanted to sleep, and the rest likewise?

THE DOCTOR. He certainly wanted to, even as God, that his holy flesh might take food.

THEOR. You used the term 'as' ('quatenus') in another way, and not according to its more proper meaning. Nevertheless, I will yield to you. You say that he wanted, also as God, that his holy flesh should ^D eat?

THE DOCTOR. You speak very rightly.

THEOR. His flesh—or rather his humanity—did it want his divinity to take food?

THE DOCTOR. By no means.

THEOR. And did his divinity want to eat its own self?

THE DOCTOR. Away with the thought.

THEOR. What, then, is gathered from these things? That there are two, and they are not mutually opposed. For the flesh indeed wanted to eat and to fill its hunger-prone vessels...

but the Divinity did not want to eat, and it is satisfied with the vessels ^A of its own being—the vessels which were empty through hunger; for Divinity is not emptied. DOCTOR. Most true.

THEOR. Behold, the most holy flesh of Christ wanted, for its own preservation, if I may put it so, to eat; which the Divinity did not want for itself. Again, the Divinity wanted the most holy flesh of the Word to make use of food, and the holy flesh wanted to eat; behold, the human will of his following his divine will.

DOCTOR. Why did you say that I did not use the word "insofar as" according to its primary meaning?

THEOR. Because you said, "Insofar as he is God, he wants to eat." For he indeed wants to eat, insofar as he hungers; yet he hungers not insofar as he is God, but insofar as he is man.

DOCTOR. This is known to all.

THEOR. Is it so, indeed? Have we sufficiently persuaded you, Doctor, ^B to acknowledge two wills in Emmanuel, or do you also require the testimony of the divine oracles?

DOCTOR. If we are commanded to search the Scriptures, because in them eternal life lies, and "they are the ones that testify about me," as Christ says, it is necessary to hear what they state concerning this article of doctrine.

THEOR. Search, then, these words: "Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Then also that: "Jesus wanted to go into Galilee." It is clear that insofar as he was not there, he wanted to go; but he was not there insofar as he was man; for in his divinity, he is nowhere absent. Therefore, insofar as he was man, and not insofar as he was God, he wanted to go; and thus he was endowed with will also insofar as he was man. And elsewhere: "I will that where I am, they also may be." If, insofar as Christ is God, he is above "where" (for he is not in a place insofar as he is God)—and it is impossible for a created nature to be ^C above that "where"—then insofar as he is man he wills that where he is, they also may be. And he was endowed with will also insofar as he is man. And again elsewhere: "Having come to the place, he said, I thirst; and they gave him wine mixed with gall; and having tasted it, he did not want to drink." By what part of him would you say he thirsted? If according to his divinity, his divinity would be subject to affections, desiring drink by its nature; but if according to his humanity, then insofar as he thirsted, for that reason he did not want to drink what was unsuited to that nature; and the same person was endowed with will also insofar as he was man. And elsewhere it says: "And Jesus walked in Galilee; for he did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." If walking belongs to the nature of the flesh, but not to the divinity joined to it in the same ^D hypostasis, then, insofar as he was man, the same person, though walking in Galilee, did not want to walk in Judea, and the same person was endowed with will also insofar as he was man. And elsewhere: "And having gone out from there, they were traveling..."

to the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and having entered into the house, he wanted no one to know, and he could not remain hidden." ^A If Christ, insofar as he is God, was power subsisting by itself, but insofar as he is man, [he was] weakness (for if he was crucified, the divine Apostle says, out of weakness; yet he lives out of the power of God); therefore, insofar as he was man, and not insofar as he was God, having entered into a house he did not want anyone to know, and he could not remain hidden; and the same person was endowed with will also insofar as he was man. And elsewhere he says: "And his disciples approached him, saying: Where do you want us to go and prepare the Passover for you to eat?" If the eating of the Passover pertains to those under the Law, and the Lord happened to be under the Law insofar as he was man, but not insofar as he was God; therefore, insofar as he was man, he wanted to eat the Passover, and the same person was endowed with will also insofar as he was man. And you will find countless other things in the holy oracles demonstrating that Emmanuel was endowed with will also insofar as he was man.

DOCTOR. How ought we to speak of the wills? As natural, or as hypostatic? THEOR. As natural; for if we call the wills hypostatic, we will concede three wills in the Holy Trinity, because there are three hypostases. ^B Therefore, just as there is one will in the Holy Trinity, because there is one nature; so there are two wills in Christ, because there are two natures, as has been indicated.

DOCTOR. You have helped me greatly by the example of the Holy Trinity; and I am persuaded that we ought to call the will natural, not hypostatic. Since, therefore, we grant two natures in Christ, of necessity we shall also agree on two wills, divine and human. THEOR. The human will must be understood, not as arbitrary or elective, but only as natural. DOCTOR. And what is a natural will, and what is elective? THEOR. Natural will is a power appetitive of that which is according to nature, and the preserver of all the properties substantially inherent in nature, ^C according to which it is always innate to that which is by nature endowed with will to be naturally inclined to will. But to be naturally inclined to will, and to will, is not the same thing, just as to be naturally inclined to speak and to speak are not the same. For that which is capable of speech is naturally inclined to speak; but it does not speak always, since the former belongs to the substance, held together by the reason of nature; while the latter belongs to counsel, fashioned by the judgment of the speaker; so that it is of nature to be always naturally inclined to speak, but of the hypostasis to speak in a certain way; ^D just as it is of nature to be naturally inclined to will, and of the hypostasis to will in a certain way. But to speak of judgment and election in the Lord is impossible, if we wish to speak accurately. For judgment is a disposition after the inquiry concerning the unknown, and deliberation, that is to say counsel, and crisis [judgment], towards that which is decided, after which election...

^A follows, choosing one thing over another. The Lord, however, who is not mere man, but also God, and who knows all things, is devoid of consideration, and inquiry, and counsel, and judgment; and he naturally possesses both an inclination towards the good and an aversion from evil. For this reason, we do not attribute to the Lord an arbitrary or elective will, but a natural one.

The most religious bishop Isaac said: These things are sufficient concerning the two wills of Emmanuel, for those who do not hear what has been said contentiously. Now, if you please, speak also ^B concerning the dual actions.

THEOR. I do not think that you, who are nourished in the holy Scriptures, have need of long speech to demonstrate the dual actions of Christ. For to spit, and to make clay from the spittle, and to anoint the eyes of the blind man, is entirely a human action. For we would not say that the Godhead spits, unless we are mad. But to transform that clay into an eye and light, this we will entirely attribute to the Godhead. One would find infinite things of this kind, if he diligent examines the divine oracles. This will be clear also ^C through the example of a glowing sword. For it cuts and burns at the same time. And the burning is clearly not of the iron, but of the fire; and the cutting, not of the fire, but of the iron. The cutting and the burning are actions of a different [and again, a different] nature. But because of the union, we say that this burning is not only of the fire, but also of the iron. For we say, "This iron burns." We shall also consider the matter in this way: It is the property of the soul to animate and vivify its own body; which is indeed manifest ^D from their separation. For when the soul is separated from its own body at the time of death, the body remains dead. Since, therefore, His divinity was never separated either from the body or from the soul, how did His divinity not possess this action of the soul, I mean the imparting of life? Nay, being inseparable from the body, and united to it hypostatically, it did not allow it to remain dead. For while the soul is in the body, it never happens that it is dead. For since the soul is a vital spirit, it vivifies the body, just as that wise Solomon also, speaking somewhere of certain lawless men and idolaters, aptly said: "Their life is viler than clay, because they were ignorant of Him who fashioned them, and who breathed into them an active soul, and infused into them a vital spirit."

GEN. Whoever tramples upon his own conscience, especially in matters concerning the doctrine of the faith, is not worthy to be called a Christian. I, however, calling God as my witness, profess that I was and am of the same faith as you, ever since I examined the holy books; of the faith of which you yourself are, and those holy Fathers who were brought forward by you.

^A

THEOR. If you believed so then, and believe so now, why did you write in your letter: "We speak of one nature in Christ"?

GEN. Indeed, looking at that example taken from man, which the holy Fathers used—man, I say, composed of soul and body, and who even after the union is said to be one nature, yet retains the natures from which he is composed unconfused and without change—I did not think, as I have often told you, that I was in error. Furthermore, I thought that the blessed Cyril, when he says "one incarnate nature of the Word," wished to signify this very thing. Finally, I heard from many that the Romans, following the example of Nestorius, dogmatize two separate natures. ^B And for this reason, vehemently opposing the expression "one nature," and against that which divides, we set down "one." Yet in my mind I thought thus, and I think so still, just as you yourself clarified for us through those demonstrations which you wove together from the divine Scriptures. Therefore, if you now have another point, add it; so that we may discuss it also, if it seems good to you.

THEOR. Let us then read from your letter again.

GEN. Come, let us.

As we were reading, we came to the place where it was written: "He dwelt in the womb of the Virgin for a space of nine months and five days."

THEOR. said, Whence, I pray, do you have this, that He dwelt for nine months and five days in the womb of the most chaste Virgin?

GEN. We have received from our teachers that first-born children remain in their mothers' womb five days longer than those who are not first-born. ^C And they confirm this from the wise Solomon, who says of himself: "I was fashioned in the body in the space of ten months"; by which words he wishes to signify that he was not only nine months in his mother's womb, but also took a part of the tenth. Our Emmanuel, therefore, as a first-born child, spent an equal space of time in the womb of his mother.

THEOR. Solomon, measuring times according to the custom of the Hebrews, says he was fashioned in the body in the space of ten months. For the months of the Hebrews are shorter than our months. For they measure their months according to the moon, and thus they make the beginning of the moon the beginning of the month; and conversely ^D the end of the moon, the end of their month. But the moon never has 30 or 31 days, as our months do. Therefore, according to the number of the Hebrew months, Solomon said: "I was fashioned in the body in the space of ten months." But that light of the world, John Chrysostom, in the discourse on the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he also clearly demonstrates when the Birthday of the Savior should be celebrated, and whose formal beginning of the oration is this: "What the patriarchs of old travailed for, what the prophets foretold, what the righteous longed to see, these things have come to pass, and at last reached their end today. Toward the..."

middle of this discourse he says: "When Elizabeth already carried John in her womb for the sixth month, Mary’s conception had its beginning." Then, having learned when Mary began to conceive, we shall know when she gave birth, by counting nine months from the conception. He does not say nine months and five days, as Your Holiness wrote. ^A

CATHOLICOS: We do not have that discourse of Chrysostom; however, this is very easy to correct. Let us, therefore, set that aside, if you please, and look at the following part.

Reading, then, further on in the epistle, we came to the chapter concerning the feasts, in which there were these words: "That we celebrate the Nativity and the Baptism on one and the same day, we prove this to be rightly done by many testimonies. First, all the Churches used to do so, beginning from the apostles. The second reason is that the evangelist Luke testifies to this. For he relates, concerning the feast of Atonement—which is on the tenth day of the month of Tisri, that is, the 27th of September—that it was then that the high priest Zechariah entered the Temple, offered incense, and saw the vision of the angel."

THEORIANUS: Whence is it clear, he says, that the tenth of Tisri is the 27th of September?

CATHOLICOS: From the Hebrew.

THEORIANUS: Which Hebrew? The months of the Hebrews do not correspond to our months, nor do ours to theirs; and this is manifest from the Pascha. For this reason we sometimes celebrate Pascha in the month of March, and sometimes in April, since we do not follow that Hebrew Pascha. But they never depart from the fourteenth day of their first month, that is, of Nisan, as the Mosaic Law commands. ^B Consequently, the month which is first among them sometimes falls in what we call March, and sometimes in April. And therefore the subsequent months necessarily follow the one which is first among them; and their seventh month, in which the feast of Atonement is celebrated among them, does not always fall in our September, but must necessarily sometimes come earlier and sometimes later. Whence, therefore, are you certain that the 27th of September is the 10th of Tisri?

CATHOLICOS: Thus we have received it from our predecessors.

THEORIANUS: How did you receive it? By scripture, or without scripture?

CATHOLICOS: Without scripture.

THEORIANUS: From the things that have been said about the inequality of our months and the months of the Hebrews, it is manifest that you do not know for certain whether the tenth of Tisri is the 27th of September. And if you are ignorant of this, neither do you know of the conception of John, so that you might find the conception of the Lord in the sixth month of that one. ^C

CATHOLICOS: I have no other certainty. Yet this too shall be corrected, God willing, if those things of greater moment have been amended. For I [have...]

^A oration of the divine Chrysostom, in which he teaches when the Nativity of Christ should be celebrated (of which you yourself made mention above), I have not yet seen it. Indeed, I have not even heard that any oration of Chrysostom exists on this subject; rather, I had understood that there was a certain oration on this matter by Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, though that, too, I have not seen. For they say that the divine Epiphanius, being a Hebrew by birth, confirmed from the Hebrew writings and from the chronicler Josephus that the Nativity of the Savior should be celebrated on the 25th of December. They say that the writings which Titus brought to Rome from Jerusalem when he captured that city also agree with this. But I am not greatly concerned about festivals and other customs of the Church, provided we are in agreement regarding the articles of faith.

^B THEOR. But what of the appendix to that hymn which we call the Trisagion (because the name "Holy" is repeated three times in it)? Shall we leave it unexamined? Since it is handed down in the acts of the holy and universal fourth council in what form those divine Fathers pronounced it at that time, shall we be content with their form in pronouncing that hymn? Or must we also bring forward arguments here and demonstrate that this appendix of the Fuller is to be held by the Church as abominable and to be rejected?

^C GEN. You have done well, indeed, to remind us concerning the Trisagion. For the authorities of the great doctors of the Church are found which seem to attribute that Trisagion hymn to the Son alone. And often, while considering these authorities with myself, I have remained quite perplexed; and I believe that the authors of this appendix, moved by those authorities, made it, and taught us that as often as we sing that divine hymn to the Holy Trinity, we should make no appendix; but as often as we pronounce it concerning the Son alone, we should add sometimes "who was crucified for us," at other times "who rose again," or "who was taken up," making the appendix suitably for the occasion of the mystery, and understanding those words—"God," and "the Mighty," and "the Immortal"—to apply only to Christ, our God, who was crucified for us, and raised from the dead, and taken up.

^D THEOR. It remains, therefore, that when you chant this hymn with the appendix, you call the Son "thrice holy."

GEN. Certainly; for we do rightly, calling Him not only thrice holy, but "thousand-times holy," just as the great Athanasius speaks in his oration on the assumption of the flesh and the Trinity, saying: Not only thrice holy, but infinitely holy, and set above all holiness.

THEOR. But do you not call the Father, or the Holy Spirit, "thrice holy"?

GEN. No.

THEOR. And whence has this distribution proceeded, that this divine hymn is attributed either to the Son alone, or to the whole

Trinitati; sed non Patri soli, vel sancto Spiritui soli?

GEN. We have been taught this by holy men. And we need not look far. That great Athanasius, in the oration on the assumption of flesh and the Trinity, already mentioned above, sets forth this: "We saw him, and he had no form nor beauty." For he had seen him before this in his divine and glorious form, sitting upon a high and exalted throne, when the Seraphim glorified him, saying: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth." But after this, he sees him having assumed the form of a servant, and having been made in the likeness of men. Do you see how this divine man appears to attribute the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone? For he says: "When the Seraphim glorified his majesty with these words: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth.' But after this, he sees him having assumed the form of a servant, and having been made in the likeness of men."

Moreover, even the holy Epiphanius, in his oration on the holy Theotokos, saying similar things, states: "Blessed among women, you who gave birth to the Word incarnate from you; the Word who is the Son of the Father; the Word who is God before the ages; the Word who is without beginning and eternal; the Word who is of the same substance as the inseparable Trinity; the Word who is worshipped with the Father and the Holy Spirit; the Word who is co-enthroned with the Father; the Word who sits upon the Cherubim; the Word whom those four-formed creatures glorify with these words: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth, heaven and earth are full of his majesty.'" Do you see how he, too, seems to apply the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone? For he says: "Whom the four-formed creatures glorify, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy,' and so forth."

But also the divine Chrysostom, in the oration on the Blessed One, whose beginning is: "From miracles to miracles," says the same things: "Today," he says, "the King of majesty is glorified on earth prophetically, and makes those born of earth participants in the heavenly banquet, in order to show that he is the Lord of both, since he is being hymned with a consonant voice from both sides." For this reason, those above, indicating this salvation on earth, were singing: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his majesty." But those below, joining their celebration with the heavenly joy, were crying out: "Hosanna to the son of David." Do you see that these three great lights of the Church appear to attribute that thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone?

THEOR. You spoke well when you said "appear." For they do not attribute it, but they appear to attribute it. But to whom, I ask, do they appear so? To those who are unable to penetrate to the depth of the understanding of these great and divine men. "When the Seraphim were glorifying his majesty," says that eminent Athanasius; but he did not say: "They were glorifying him alone, without the Father and the Holy Spirit." For if they were glorifying the whole Trinity, then necessarily, of course,

you will understand the holy Epiphanius, the divine Chrysostom, and others of the saints, whomever you may find writing such things. And what he says would be clear, even by way of example, in this manner: A certain woman, not one descended from royal lineage, nor even from those who are very prominent, had a daughter most beautiful, surpassing all the women of that time in beauty, modesty, and prudence. Seeing her possessing all the virtues of women, sincere and pure, an emperor took her as his wife for himself, and, as is fitting, crowned her with an imperial crown. When the time approached, however, in which the whole city is accustomed to send up acclamations to the emperors, someone said to the mother of the empress, "Come, so that you may hear your daughter being acclaimed by the entire city with auspicious cries." ^B

THE CATHOLICOS. Interrupting the discourse, he said: I understand what you wish to say. Since the acclamation is common to the emperor and the empress, one can rightly say that those who glorify the Son, glorify the Father also, and the Holy Spirit. For all these things, said either together or separately, are true, provided the word "alone" is not added.

THEORIANUS. You have relieved us of trouble, most holy Lord. It follows, then, that the Seraphim did not sing the thrice-holy hymn to the Son alone, but to the whole Trinity; and for this reason, it is not necessary to add "who was crucified," or any other addition. But it is possible to prove in another way that the great Epiphanius did not understand the thrice-holy hymn as applying to the Son alone, from the very passage of his that was set forth. For he says: "The Word, the co-enthroned of the Father; the Word, who sits upon the Cherubim." He did not indicate that the Son alone sits upon the Cherubim, without the Father and the Spirit; for he had previously called him the co-enthroned of the Father. Thus, one must think the same regarding the glorification. The sitting is common, and the glorification is common. And that which the evangelist Luke records at the end of the Acts ^C contributes not a little to the meaning before us. For he says that Paul uttered this word: "Rightly did the Holy Spirit speak through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: You shall hear with your hearing and not understand; and seeing you shall see and not perceive,' " and so on. What then? Shall we say that only the Holy Spirit is sitting upon the high and lifted-up throne, commanding the prophet Isaiah, "Go to this people," and so on, because the divine Paul mentions only the Holy Spirit? Or does he mention the Father also, with the Son? ^D

THE CATHOLICOS. This is resolved, and there is no need to say anything more about it.

THEORIANUS. Let us see, then, what you have written in your letter concerning the myron.

^A THE CATHOLICOS. You speak correctly; so be it. And having read the chapter concerning the myron, we found it as follows: "Again, the Scripture directed that our myron be made from the oils of herbs, which they call sesame, and not from olive trees." ^B And this is the truth. And the reason for the matter is this, that in the region of the Armenians there are no olive groves, because of the coldness of the climate in that region; and necessity demands that the oil which is found in that region be taken for the use of the myron, and I see no spiritual fault in this. THEORIANUS. I wonder, Lord, why you have written this to the Emperor. For I see very many olive groves here, and indeed enough oil. THE CATHOLICOS. But the beginning of the preparation of the myron took place in the innermost East, where there are no olive groves; and having received it from there, we preserve what we have received until now.

Then, having read the next part of this chapter, we found it thus: "For just as wine is the matter of Christ's blood, and of whatever color it may be, it must be received—whether the wine be black, or red, or white—since the liturgy sanctifies it, and it becomes the blood of Christ." THEORIANUS. Your example is not apposite. For our question is not about colors, but about the subject, that is, the matter. For you know that wine is made from different trees; for it is made from apples, and cherries, and other fruits, and even herbs. But it is not offered for sacrifice, except that which is made from the vine. ^C So also concerning oil: oil is made from laurel, and from lentisk, and from many other things; but the oil of the olive was preferred by the holy Fathers. And it is possible for anyone who wishes to learn this, both from Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and from not a few other holy men. Nor is the argument which is woven from the name itself of less importance. For if "oil" is said simply, that which is made from the olive is understood. But when [one says] laurel-oil, or lentisk-oil, or sesame-oil, and other such things... For just as when I say "ship," the ship made of wood, and nails, and pitch, by which we sail, is understood, not a stone ship; but if we wish to signify a stone ship, we add "stone"; without which addition, from the appellation "ship" alone, a stone ship would never be understood; in the same way, it must be determined concerning oil and sesame-oil. Wherefore, ^D calling it "oil" without an addition, they signify that which is made from the olive.

THE CATHOLICOS. This too will be most easy to correct.

These things having been said, his priests began to chant the sequence of the vesperal hymn outside the church, according to their custom. And THEORIANUS says: "Why do your priests stand outside the church when they chant?" THE CATHOLICOS. It is written: "In every place of his dominion."

^A THEOR. It is similarly written: "Bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, who stand in the house of the Lord." And again: "In the assemblies bless God," and there are infinite things of this kind. But I ask, whence did you accept this? THE CATHOLICOS. Those who handed down to us the ecclesiastical sequence and order, decided that only the divine liturgy should be performed within the divine temple, with the priest alone entering it, while the entire people stand outside; but they ordered that every other service should take place outside the divine temple, and this they did reasonably. For the new greatly surpasses the old, as truth surpasses a shadow. For the Son of God is sacrificed within for the salvation of the whole world, and it is fitting for us to offer greater reverence and honor to the temple among us than they did among the Hebrews. For they, being pure, entered into what was called the holy place of the world, not into the tabernacle which was called the Holy of Holies, and it was a shadow of the divine temple among us; but we, being full of filth, how shall we enter the most holy temple of God? And our teachers, knowing this, decided that it should be done in this way. ^B THEOR. Your teachers, who decided these things, seem to have decreed the opposite to those holy and divinely-guided Fathers who gathered in Nicaea. For they say in the tenth canon exactly as follows: "Concerning those who have renounced the Christian faith without necessity, or without the taking away of their possessions, or without danger, or something of this sort, which happened during the tyranny of Licinius, it has seemed good to the holy synod, even if they are unworthy of humanity, that they be treated kindly. As many, therefore, as truly repent, the faithful shall spend three years among the hearers, and for seven years they shall be among the penitents; and for two years they shall communicate in prayers without the oblation." Do you see that for those who have fallen so deeply, the canon commands that they be hearers for only three years, that is, to stand outside the church in the narthex, and to hear the divine Scriptures? But your priests always remain among the hearers. Then what does the canon say? "And for seven years they shall be penitents," which means to enter the church, but to stand in the back part behind the ambo, and to leave with the catechumens. "And for two years they shall stand and pray with the faithful," but they shall not be deemed worthy of the reception of the sacraments until the two-year period has passed. If, therefore, those bound by the penalty of excommunication enter the church, why do your priests not enter? ^C THE CATHOLICOS. I have never until now applied my mind to this canon. But it contributes greatly to your argument. However, we must not be concerned about such matters, provided that we are of one mind regarding the faith, as I said. THEOR. Leaving these things aside for the present, let us look, if you please, at the definition of the fourth synod, which we offered you yesterday.

^A GEN. So be it. For I wish to ask about certain expressions contained therein. But first, let us compare both books with one another, and see if they correspond; and then we shall ask about those things in which we are in doubt.

Definition of the holy IVth council

^A

Following, then, these holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that we must confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity; truly God and truly man, the same, consisting of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity; like us in all things, except sin; begotten of the Father before all ages according to the divinity, but in these last days the same for us and for our salvation [was] born of Mary the Virgin Theotokos, according to the humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures being in no way suppressed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved rather, and coming together in one person and one subsistence; not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; just as the prophets from of old [spoke] about him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the symbol of our Fathers has handed down. ^B

These things, therefore, having been formulated by us with all possible accuracy and care, the holy and universal synod decreed that it is not permitted for anyone to produce, or to write, or to compose, or to hold, or to teach others another faith. And as for those who dare either to compose another faith, or to produce, or to teach, or to hand down another symbol to those who wish to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth from paganism, or Judaism, or any sect whatsoever, if they are bishops or clerics, it removes the bishops from their episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; but if they are monks or laymen, it decrees that they be subject to anathema. ^C

After the decree of the council had been read, and the books were found to be in agreement—both the Armenian and the Roman—and the words of it which seemed ambiguous to the Catholicos, being of moderate character, had attained sufficient clarity, Theorianus said to the Catholicos: "You see, most holy master, that the divine choir of the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers who were gathered in the city of the Chalcedonians, not only spoke or thought nothing outside the rectitude of the dogmas, but did not even use one single strange word in the exposition of this divine decree. For it has preserved the faith of the Fathers who were before it, and the very words themselves. ^D And, if you permit, I will show you from which older divine Fathers these blessed Fathers took every single word of this decree. For most of them [are taken] from the commentaries of the blessed Cy-

-^A-rillus, whose writings you have determined to follow more than others. CATH. We shall hear it gladly, if you are willing to speak. THEOR. If I had not been willing to speak, I would not have promised. But let the decree be read clause by clause, and to each clause of the decree let the saying of him from whom it was taken be added.

From the Decree. Following then those holy Fathers, we all teach with one accord that one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, must be confessed.

Cyril, from the first epistle to Succensus. We have been taught by Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers to confess one Son and Christ.

From the same, from the epistle to Eulogius. For we, having unified these things, confess one Christ, one and the same Son, one Lord.

From the Decree. The same perfect in divinity, and the same perfect in humanity.

Cyril, from the epistle to John. The same is perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity.

From the same, from the epistle to the Augustas. Moreover, if I first bear witness to this as well, I think I shall do rightly. For just as the Word born of God the Father is perfect in divinity, so also is He perfect in humanity according to the definition of humanity itself; and He did not assume a body lacking a soul, but rather one animated by a soul that is a participant of reason.

From the Decree. Truly God, and the same truly man, composed of a soul participant of reason and a body; of the same substance with the Father according to divinity, and the same of the same substance as us according to humanity, like us in all things, except sin; begotten of the Father before the ages in respect to divinity; but in the last days the same [born] for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to humanity.

Cyril, from the epistle to John. Perfect God and perfect man, composed of a soul participant of reason and a body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to divinity, but in the last days the same [born] for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin according to humanity; of the same substance with the Father according to divinity, and of the same substance as us according to humanity.

From the Decree. One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-Begotten, who is recognized in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.^BCD

^A

Cyril, from the first epistle to Successus.

Therefore, considering the manner of the assumption of human nature, we see that the two natures have come together by an inseparable union, without confusion, and without change. For flesh is flesh, and not divinity, even if it has become the flesh of God. Likewise, the Word is God, and not flesh, even if He has by dispensation made the flesh His own.

The same, from the same epistle.

We say that there are two natures, but one Christ Jesus, the Lord, the Word of God incarnate.

The same, from the epistle to Nestorius.

We do not say that the flesh was turned into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable Word of God was transferred into the nature of the flesh. For He is immutable and unalterable, always remaining the same, according to the Scriptures. ^B

The same, in the epistle to Eulogius.

Thus also in the case of Nestorius: although he speaks of two natures, signifying the distinction between the flesh and the divinity (for the nature of the Word is one thing, the nature of the flesh is another), he does not, however, acknowledge the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Son, the same one, one Lord.

From the Decree.

Nowhere is the distinction of the natures done away with because of the union.

Cyril, from the epistle to Nestorius.

Not as though the distinction of the natures were done away with because of the union.

From the Decree.

But rather with the property of each nature preserved. ^C

Cyril, from the second epistle to Successus.

For although the Only-Begotten Son of God is called by us incarnate and made man, yet He is not thereby commingled, according to their opinion, nor has the nature of the Word passed into the nature of the flesh, nor the nature of the flesh into the nature of the Word; but each remains and is understood in its own property, both together, according to the account just now rendered to us.

From the Decree.

And concurring into one person and one hypostasis. ^D

Cyril, from the epistle to John.

And as one united in one person; for one is the Lord Jesus Christ, even if the distinction of the natures is not ignored.

The same, from the second epistle to Nestorius.

To one person therefore are all the voices in the Gospels to be attributed, and to one hypostasis of the Word incarnate. For Christ Jesus is one Lord, according to the Scriptures.

From the Decree.

Not parted or divided into two persons.

But he has remained one and the same Lord Jesus Christ. ^A From the Decree. Just as the prophets told us of him from of old, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and delivered to us the symbol of our Fathers. Cyril, from the Epistle to Nestorius. Thus we shall find that the holy Fathers have thought. From the Decree. These things, therefore, having been established by us with all care and thoroughness on every side, the holy synod decreed that it is not lawful for anyone to bring forward or to commit to writing any other faith; and so forth. Cyril, from the Ephesian Synod. These things having been read, the holy synod decreed that it is not lawful for anyone to bring forward any other faith; and so forth. ^B THEOR. Do you see, most holy lord, that the holy synod held at Chalcedon has not departed even a little from the right judgment of the Fathers, but has preserved both the very words themselves along with the sense of the words? GEN. Indeed, I find nothing in this decree that stands against the orthodox faith; and I marvel how it has come to pass that our ancestors impudently proceeded to slander it. THEOR. Let us, if it please you, also adduce the authorities of those Fathers, who were illustrious partly before Cyril and partly after him, responding to the holy Chalcedonian synod ^C as much in words as in sentiments. GEN. That would be superfluous, since the authorities of St. Cyril cited above are sufficient. ^D THEOR. Let us see then, if it please you, against how many and what kind of heresies this divine decree sets itself. GEN. It is good to see this, so that nothing may be lacking for us in the establishment of those things that ought to be spoken hereafter. From the Decree. We all teach with one voice that one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is to be confessed. THEOR. In these words he stops the mouth of Paul of Samosata and Nestorius, who worshipped a man, and who dared to divide him into two sons, calling one Son the Word by nature, and another Son again, Christ Jesus, by grace, who had obtained the name of Son through union and conjunction with the natural Son; who, finally, did not confess one and the same Son, free from flesh before the descent and the assumption of man, but the same one incarnate after the descent and the assumption of humanity made for our sake.

^A *From the decree.* "Perfect the same in divinity, and perfect the same in humanity." By saying "perfect in divinity," he rejects the blasphemy of the Arians; for they say that Christ is truly God, but they teach that he is an imperfect God and inferior to the Father. But by saying, "And the same perfect in humanity," he refutes not only the insanity of the Arians but also that of the Apollinarians. For Arius talks nonsense, claiming that the Word assumed flesh entirely devoid of soul; while Apollinarius says it was indeed ensouled, but lacking a mind—whereby both ignorantly teach that the Lord's humanity is imperfect.

*From the decree.* "Truly God, and truly man, the same." These things are posited on account of Manes, who confesses him to be only God and not man; and on account of Paul of Samosata and Artemas, who deny his divinity, confessing him to be mere man.

*From the decree.* "Consisting of a reasoning soul, and body." Here again he fights against Apollinarius, who said that our Lord Jesus Christ did not possess a reasoning soul, but only a vital one; and against Manes and Valentinus, who deny his incarnation.

*From the decree.* "Of the same substance as the Father, according to divinity." This is on account of Eunomius and Arius, who impiously proclaimed that only Begotten Word to be of a substance different from the Father's, and a creature and a slave.

*From the decree.* "And the same of the same substance with us, according to humanity." This is on account of Marcion, and Manes, and Valentinus, who said that he appeared as man only by opinion and phantasy, and did not confess that he had been made man in reality and by nature.

*From the decree.* "Begotten of the Father before the ages, according to divinity." This is on account of Simon, and Eunomius, and Arius, who denied his generation from the Father before the ages.

*From the decree.* "But in the last days, the same for us and for our salvation, from Mary the Virgin and Theotokos, according to humanity." This is on account of Photinus, and Theodore, and Diodorus, and Nestorius, who give him the beginning of his existence from the Virgin, and say that he is a man who was deified by virtue through a certain progress and increase, and not God from God, who out of love for the human race became man without change.

^D *From the decree.* "Who in two natures is recognized without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being in no way taken away by reason of the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one person and one hypostasis." These things are on account of Nestorius, and Apollinarius, and Eutyches, who say that the different natures—I speak of the Word and of his flesh—have finished into one nature, the property of each having evidently departed; so that, according to their teaching, we can no longer maintain that anything in Christ is passible, on account of the divine part of him which is free from passion, nor anything impassible, on account of the human part of him which is subject to passion.

^A Things being thus read and interpreted, the Catholicos said to Theorianus: "Having read this definition, I have discerned nothing in it contrary to the orthodox faith, as I said before; and I marvel how those before us so shamelessly proceeded to calumniate it. But I suppose that, because this holy, universal, and great synod stands against so many heresies, as has been shown, the enemy of human salvation stirred up many calumniators against it, in return for the many wounds it inflicted upon his heart. Most upright, indeed, is the definition, as having been dictated by the all-holy Spirit through such and so great saintly and God-bearing Fathers; for no holy synod has ever had so many holy Fathers assembled. But now I will reveal to you something that has hitherto remained undisclosed. Two hundred years ago there was a certain Catholicos of the Armenians named John, equal in life and doctrine to the great and holy Fathers, and one who had not only superficially touched upon all outside learning, but even upon philosophy itself; and in divine life, I know not if he did not surpass most, but he certainly surpassed many. Deemed worthy, by grace of his life as well as his doctrine, to attain this sacred rank and throne—I mean, of the Catholicos—he was filled with divine zeal and rushed against the Monophysites; and he did not cease, throughout almost the entire time of his episcopate, to inflict wounds upon them, both by his writings and his tongue. We celebrate his divine memory honorably and piously. I possess the treatise of this divine and blessed man, which he wrote against the Monophysites, filled with many Scriptural testimonies, enthymemes, powerful syllogisms, common notions, and demonstrations. This, the General Gregory of blessed memory, who was illustrious on this throne not long before me, confirmed, writing at the end of it: 'So do I also believe, just as the most holy Catholicos John has written here, and I anathematize those who do not believe thus.' And if you command, we shall read a little from it, so that you may know the man, just as one knows the lion by his claws."

THEOR. I would most gladly hear the writing.

^C When the proemium had been read, Theorianus said to the General: "I beseech your great holiness that this writing be copied and given to me, so that we may have it translated into Greek in Romania, for the honor of the Father himself, and that through it we may celebrate the author."

GEN. It pleases me greatly.

And so, having been copied, it was given to us, and we carried it to the imperial city.

These things having been done, the Catholicos said to us: "The blessed Paul said: ^D 'I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,' if only they might be saved. I say the same thing regarding my own people. And when

the good shepherd ought even to die for his sheep, I shall employ every device and zeal, and I shall become all things to all men, that I might save all, or at any rate some; so that I too may be able to say, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” ^A But listen as to how I shall do this. From this day forward I shall begin to write letters to the bishops of the Armenians everywhere in the world, inviting them to a synod. And after the synod has been held, I shall bring forward all the authorities which the Armenians possess and which appear to support them. I shall also bring forward those testimonies from the sacred Scriptures which you yourself have brought before me. And first of all, I shall be on the side of the Armenians, arguing ^B against you; then slowly, and by degrees, and with much discretion, and at the appropriate time and manner, I shall begin to uncover the error of the Armenians that has prevailed until now. I shall refute them also from the book of the one of holy memory, John, that general bishop, which book I offered you to be copied, and from all those demonstrations which your learning has provided me. In sum, I shall be a Roman, and for the Romans—nay rather, for the sake of the truth—I shall contend against the Armenians; and I have a firm hope in God that my sheep will hear my voice and will follow me, and we shall be, by God’s help, one fold and one shepherd. And if all should come together to me, it will be well, and I shall not cease to give thanks to the benevolent God; but if—which I would not wish to happen—they do not, then with those who follow me and agree with me, ^C I shall confirm the doctrine of the truth, and I shall send to our powerful and holy emperor, and to the most holy and universal patriarch, the notable ones among my head-priests, bearing the orthodox faith in writing, signed by my own hand, and containing the signatures of all the orthodox bishops who are subject to me, who will confirm it both by their own voice and by writing, in our name and in the name of those Armenians who have accepted the truth. And among other things, this also will be contained in such a written confession of faith: that we receive the great and universal fourth holy synod held at Chalcedon, and those holy Fathers whom it receives; but those whom it ^D conversely subjects to anathema, we too anathematize—namely, Eutyches and Dioscorus, and furthermore Severus and Timothy Aelurus, and all who uttered mere trifles against it. But as for those who have closed the eyes of their hearts to the light of the truth, and who consider themselves wiser than the holy men, I shall consign them to eternal anathema. Then, after these things have all been confirmed synodically in the imperial city, and my head-priests have returned, if the most God-beloved emperor commands, I myself shall enter into the imperial city, to venerate the holy shrines there, and the apostle-equal and holy emperor, and the most holy patriarch. And having said these things, he departed from the chamber

all of them, and with a mind bearing grief before it, and eyes full of tears, he began to speak to us:

I beseech our kind and holy Emperor that, after my bishops have entered Constantinople and all these things we have said have been confirmed, he may command the most holy and universal Patriarch, adorned in his pontifical vestments which he is accustomed to wear whenever he performs the holy ministry, to ascend the ambo, or the holy and sacred throne situated behind the holy table, holding in his hands the holy cross, having the venerable wood, and in the hearing of the whole body of the Church and the people, to pray well for the nation of the Armenians, which for almost a whole century has been subject to anathema; then, let him take care that earnest prayers be offered also for those Armenians who have fallen asleep, so that God, who wills the salvation of all men, may remit to them this offense [committed] out of ignorance, not malice.

When, therefore, we saw him uttering these things to us with a contrite heart and with groans, we too were moved to pity, and were altogether dissolved into mere tears and lamentations. But when a little time had passed, and he had, as it were, quieted his weeping, Theorianus said:

These requests of yours, lord, we shall lay before our powerful and holy Emperor. ^B Then, having been handed an epistle by him to our most pious, and holy, and Christ-loving Emperor, in which he also included that he receives that great, and universal, and holy fourth synod held at Chalcedon, he dismissed us in peace; and, touching our heads, he prayed well for us. We, however, having given thanks to God for all these things, set out on continuous journeys toward Constantinople, praising and glorifying God in the meantime; to whom indeed all majesty, honor, adoration, and magnificence belong unto the ages of ages. Amen.

THEORIANUS' SECOND DISPUTATION WITH NERSES, CATHOLICOS OF THE ARMENIANS

^D Epistle of Nerses, General Catholicos of Armenia, to the Emperor lord Manuel, sent by his legates, and...

translated into Greek by the monk Atmanus from Philippopolis, in the presence also of the master Theorianus, in the month of December, in the fourth indiction. This was written after the previous disputation with Theorianus.

DISPUTATION II

^A The deliberation of your Majesty, divinely crowned emperor of the Romans, Porphyrogenitus, triumphant, victor, ever Augustus, lover of religion and of the peace of the Churches, has reached us also, the humble venerators of your holy Majesty; and from it we have recognized your will, which conforms to the divine will. For just as by the parity of the name, so also by your deeds, you desire to be like the true Emmanuel, who reconciled peace in heaven and on earth and, as the Apostle says, destroyed the middle wall of the partition (Eph. 2:14). Together with the written deliberation, the men sent by you—the philosopher and master Theorianus, and our countryman and companion in the monastic profession, the abbot John, who is also called Atmanus—have made known to us by living voice the resolve of your Majesty. From these, we have understood that you possess the utmost zeal for the union of the Catholic Church. And we are convinced that such a will and such an inquiry is not human, but rather more divine and exalted. For just as the Most High nature inclined itself to our lowliness so that it might exalt us, and He who is full emptied Himself for a little while of His own glory so that He might fill us with His fullness, in the same way your holy Majesty, though lacking nothing of all things, yet desires as if in need to associate with our poverty, not in order to supply any lack of your own, but to follow the impulse of the divine love by which we are commanded not only to love our neighbors as ourselves, but also our enemies, and not to seek only our own benefit, but also that of our neighbor.

^B Therefore, having held discourse with the philosopher sent by your holy Majesty, and using the divinely inspired Scriptures as our guides, we were healed in our mind, for we learned of the faith of the Roman Church from the speech of the aforementioned man. For we, and those before us, had heard from certain uneducated persons from the coastal regions, who called themselves Romans, ^C unsound words spoken concerning the economy of Christ; and we were distressed in our mind, becoming scandalized, assuming that you had declined into some part of the Nestorian heresy. In turn, you likewise received an evil report about us from certain of our own commoners who, because of their undisciplined ways, withdrew from us, while these brought their slanders ^D against us before your presence as though they were a gift, hoping thereby to gain your favor and friendship.

^A Wherefore, you also are scandalized in your mind, thinking us to be of the same mind as Eutyches and those with him, who speak erroneously of "one nature." Nevertheless, by this searching investigation, the deceit of the falsehood of both sides was stripped away and revealed, and it was shown and became manifest that the truth is established; that the division of Nestorius is far from you, and the confusion of Eutyches is far from us, and that we have been brought near to one another in the correctness of our dogmas, by the grace of God.

Since, however, the throne of your majesty, from which the authority of the priesthood is strengthened, has been removed from our race by the tyranny of the foreigners, for this reason also our priesthood has been driven from its ancestral land and throne, and is tossed about sojourning in a foreign land. For this cause, we do not have at hand for the present the bishops and doctors of the Armenians; and without the consent of all, it is not possible to give a perfect defense to the inquiry of your question, lest instead of union, we provide various causes for separation, and our words become unstable and strange. For this reason, it did not seem right to us to write an apology concerning this most serious controversy with only the men who are around me, before I have sent messengers into Great Armenia, and even into the remaining parts of the world, and have gathered all the wise men of the Armenians, and have set before them this question of yours concerning the faith and the order of the Church: which, when it happens, I truly shall devote all my efforts, zeal, will, work, encouragement, and the very power of my example, so that I may be the author of restoring mutual love and peace between us; ^B namely, that we, with you who have first taken care to bring about this spiritual good, may be worthy of that beatitude of the peacemakers which Christ promised in the Gospel.

But since those sent by your majesty have requested that, even now, we should send some brief discourse in writing concerning our opinion on matters of faith to your holy majesty, we have indeed done this, not using our own words, but those of the holy doctors who lived before the separation. ^C We confess, therefore, the consubstantial and uncreated holy Trinity to be distinct in three persons, and joined in one nature and divinity, not circumscribed by time, nor destined to cease or be subject to any mutation, as the created nature is accustomed to be. The Father is unbegotten, since he proceeds from no one: the Son is begotten from the Father, incorporeally, as a word from the mind: and the Spirit proceeds from the Father incomprehensibly and inscrutably. The Father is without beginning; and from the Father who is without beginning is the Son; and the Spirit, in a manner unbegotten and without beginning and incomprehensible to the mind, and unspeakably by the Word: one will, and one power, and one authority, one maker of all things that are, and one provider for all, whose glory fills heaven and earth. In the last days, however, one of the holy Trinity, the Son, by the will of the Father and with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, ^D inclined toward our nature for the sake of our

^A salvation; and the perfect divinity assumed the perfect human nature—soul, and mind, and body—from the ever-virgin Mary. And there came to be a new creation, from two natures united into one hypostasis ineffably and inseparably. And God was born of her, having become man; and the Son of God, not having ceased to be the Son of God, became and was called Son of man. There was no alteration of the assumed human essence from the Virgin, but in the ineffable union of divinity and humanity, the manifestation of the natures remained unchanged and immutable, although it is perceived by the mind alone, and exists inseparably and indivisibly. For the mixture of the Creator with the creature is understood to be beyond the mixture of mortal natures; for the latter are either separated when they are joined to others, or are changed into other things. But the Creator is joined to us by nature, and underwent neither separation nor change into humanity, nor did the humanity change into divinity. Therefore, we do not, following Nestorius, divide the one Christ into two persons, nor, following Eutyches and his like-minded followers, do we confuse [them] into one nature, but we speak of two natures, ^B according to the great theologian Gregory, who writes in his letter to Cledonius against Apollinarius and those with him that there are two natures; then he also gives the reason: [because He is] God and man. And in truth, for if He were only God or only man, it would be reasonable to say that He has one nature, either divine or human. But since He is God and man, joined in an ineffable union, it is clear that He has a divine nature and a human nature, but [they are] united, inseparably, just as soul and body. And furthermore, the truth of the union exceeds the example, as the teacher himself says following this: "Not one and another, God forbid; for both are in the mixture, God having become man, and man having been deified." And elsewhere he says, "For He was twofold, clearly, in nature, not in hypostasis."

As for our speaking of one nature, let no one suppose that it is for any other reason than because of the inseparable union of the two natures, which we have learned from the orthodox teachers ^C of the Church, and especially from holy Cyril of Alexandria, as he writes against Nestorius in the first letter to Successus: "We confess one incarnate nature of the Word, as the Fathers have spoken." But also in his second letter to him, he speaks even more clearly, having first set forth the argument of those who opposed him when he said "one incarnate nature of the Word": "If," he says, "Emmanuel was brought together from two natures, but after the union one incarnate nature of the Word is understood, it will surely follow that one must say that He suffered in His own nature." To which he defends himself after some words as follows: "Why then is there any need for Him to suffer in His own nature, if it is said that after the union there is one incarnate nature of the Son? For if, perchance, there were not in the account of the oikonomia a subject capable of enduring the passion, they would rightly have said that, since that which is capable [of suffering] ^D

has a nature necessarily subject to the passion. And again he says: "Because the adversaries say that if the nature of the Word is one and incarnate, it is absolutely necessary to say that a commingling and a crasis has occurred, with the human nature in Him being, as it were, diminished and stolen away; those who distort the right path ignore again that it is in truth one nature of the Word that is incarnate." And after a few words he clarifies the statement with examples. For it is not only of those things which are simple by nature that "one" is truly predicated, but also of those which are brought together by composition, such as the human being, consisting of soul and body—things that are indeed of a different kind and not consubstantial with each other, yet once united they bring about the one human nature, even if the difference according to the nature of those things which have come together into unity subsists in the principles of composition. They are therefore empty of sense who say that if the nature of the Word is one and incarnate, a commingling and crasis must entirely and necessarily have occurred, as if the human nature were being diminished and stolen away; for it is neither diminished nor, as they say, stolen away. And many other things of the same meaning can be found in Saint Cyril and other teachers. The same doctor, who also opposed those who bring ^B about division, and likewise those who spoke of the one nature according to confusion, says in the first epistle: "Considering therefore, as I said, the mode of the incarnation, we see that two natures have come together ^C with one another according to an inseparable, unconfused, and immutable union; for the flesh is flesh and not divinity, even if it has become the flesh of God; likewise also the Word is God, and not flesh, even if He made the flesh His own and for the sake of the oikonomia." And a little later he says: "Consequently, as far as it reaches into conception and merely to the seeing with the eyes of the soul in what way the Only-Begotten became human, we say that there are two natures united, one Christ, Son and Lord, the Word of God having become human and incarnate."

These, indeed, are the hallmarks of our perfect wisdom. Having these as guides, we also proceed toward the path of truth that leads to God, rightly and freely bearing our theological discourse in a twofold manner: we speak of one incarnate nature of the Word according to Saint Cyril, because of the ineffable union; and we also speak of two, according to Saint Gregory the Theologian, because of the unchangeable and immutable condition of the natures, both divine and human; not having the arms of righteousness one-sided, but—as the Apostle says—on the right hand and on the left, wielding them. ^D Against the division of Arius regarding nature, they opposed the Sabellian unity of nature in the Trinity, without however asserting a single person. Conversely, they warded off the Sabellian unity of person with the Arian distinction of persons, yet in such a way that they banished any distinction of a single nature entirely from the Church. By an equal reasoning...

^A they censured and denounced the confusion which Eutyches and his followers introduced; and they set the inseparable union of the two natures of divinity and humanity against Nestorius and his followers, who divide Christ, and who call them two natures indeed, but separated, and not joined in the one Christ. Thus, they drove the Nestorian division far from themselves as bitter tares; but they established the immutability of both in the making of the union—that is, of divinity and humanity—against Eutyches and his followers, both old and new, who assert one nature in a perverse sense: in which matter they imitated physicians, who are accustomed to prepare a salutary medicine not only from wholesome things, but even from harmful ones.

Now, therefore, we also, according to the tradition of the orthodox holy Fathers, anathematize those who say that one nature of the incarnate Word was made through change and alteration; and those who say that Christ did not take human nature from our dough and unite it to the divinity, but that he himself of his own accord assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin, or brought it from heaven, or appeared as a man in phantasy and not in truth; and those who, for any other cause, speak of one nature in Christ, and not because of the inseparable and unconfused union. In this way, we also anathematize those who follow Nestorius, who divide Christ into two natures, specifically and apart, separating God from man, speaking of one who suffered and died, and not of the impassible and immortal one; and who do not attribute both things to the power of the union, passion and impassibility, death and immortality. ^B But we believe that the God Word, who was begotten of the Father before the ages, invisible, impassible, and immortal, took our nature perfectly from the Virgin and united it to his own divine nature in an unconfused and inseparable union, and he who is invisible according to his divine nature became visible according to his humanity; and he who is untouchable became touchable; and he who is impassible and immortal according to his divine nature became passible and mortal according to our nature. It is not that, by division, one is the impassible and another the passible, one the immortal and another the mortal; but the one who suffered and died according to the assumed human nature is the same, being impassible and immortal according to his own divine nature. ^C For this reason, it is said to be the blood of God, and the passion and the death and God crucified, and similar things, which we attribute to the divine nature not properly, but by reason of the ineffable union. And just as it is impossible to bestow life and immortality upon men through death, except that the God Word was united to the mortal and passible nature of men, what was impossible became possible; for the impassible suffered in the passible [nature], and the immortal died in the mortal. For this reason, we also have been made alive, who are his body and members joined to the living and life-giving Christ, our head, who is blessed and glorified unto the ages. ^D

^A These few things, then, have been spoken for the present from the many that remained to be said, dictated by our meager and humble mind and our weak learning, for your sublime wisdom, so that you might understand in summary the firm dogma of the Armenian Church concerning the faith in the Holy Trinity and the economy of Christ. And you may be able to know the whole from the part; just as by a small and insignificant taste of food or drink, one may discern the wholesome from the harmful. But concerning all the controversies by which we disagree with one another, however many they may be, after the gathering of the synod, as we have said above, we shall write a complete and most full treatise to your powerful and holy majesty.

But concerning the circumstances of our life, because of the harshness of the place and time in which we live, and the lack of necessary things, and the distress of our long sojourn here—we who dwell in the midst of the tents of Kedar—your holy majesty will be informed by the envoys who have brought this letter of ours. They will also present before your highness and greatness our small gifts, namely, three Arabian horses and Muslim bows; which, although they are small things, yet mystically signify that you shall mount upon your horses and crush the bows of your enemies. Just as the true Emmanuel [represses] the invisible powers, so may you repress the visible might of those who oppose the Church; and thus may we be made worthy to see you and rejoice in the glory of Christ our God.

Rescript of the most holy patriarch, lord Michael, supreme of the philosophers, to the aforementioned General, given in the name of our powerful and holy emperor, lord Manuel.

^B Your letter, most reverend General, has been brought to my majesty, and my power has discovered that you have recognized the way of justice; and, as the Scripture says, you have been made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven, and are like a man who is a merchant, who brings forth from his treasury things new and old: [*] for you have decided to follow the primary and divine traditions of the apostles, and likewise the later statutes of the Fathers and the prescriptions of the canons. For you have kindled a fire in your meditation, and, warming and testing in Christ the true God and our Savior our word, you have ^C rightly refined it, and delivered it to the spiritual furnace; and if there was anything in it obscuring the brightness of the truth, you have caused it to be consumed by the divine flame, which in reality was burned up like a dry twig. Now, if anything still perhaps offends those who attentively examine your letter, that too, by the discernment of your severity

^A and the straightness of your accurate dividing, as something rough and not leaning toward the standard of the rule, like a small tare grown up among the pure wheat of orthodoxy, it will be rooted out as being a source of scandal and as a blot on a noble and pure mind, and will be completely abolished and discarded. Wherefore, the truth of the Scripture saying appears: “Life and death are in the power of the tongue” ^B. For death, or rather the most terrible of deaths, is the loss of right dogma for those who fall into impious unbelief and rashly arm their tongue against the tongue, and widen their own mouth like the gate of Hades. On the other hand, life—or rather eternal life, immune to any corruption—is in those abstruse, invisible, and hidden treasures of the orthodox sentiment, which the universal God promised He would reveal to men who seek Him studiously, and who do not hide the key of knowledge, but both enter in themselves and do not prevent others from entering.

Having this life, therefore, in itself, your Reverence, our Majesty ^C knows well that you will impart it to others and will reform the perversity and stubbornness that clings to some of the more ignorant, and by the refreshing words of the unfailing faith will wash away the salt sea of evil belief, and will turn the disease into the most sincere health. Since, therefore, we have you who are the head, agreeing with the other ecumenical synods and also with the fourth, we are full of hope that the other members will follow the head; and everything that disrupts the praised unity and dissolves the bond of union, being inconsistent and incompatible with the articulation of the whole body, will be cleansed and removed from the midst. For even if the former ^D shepherds of the Armenians acted senselessly, according to the prophet’s word, and the whole flock did not know and was scattered, nonetheless, the wise and sensible pastor who has come after them will gather together what was scattered, and will identify to all the pasture corresponding to the deadly herb, and will lead in the flock, and will cause it to dwell in the soul-nurturing and safe fold, and will gladden the Master of the house, because the talent has come to profit, and the heavenly powers have rejoiced over the finding of the drachma.

Our Majesty has thirsted and still thirsts for the unclouded river of peace to flood all the Churches; and with the most ardent desire, it has desired and does desire that all should become one spiritual bond, and it rejoices at these things as at nothing else. And you have instilled into it a gleam of ineffable joy, because you yourself were found to be cooperating and hastening toward this good of ecclesiastical concord. And let the Church of God rejoice, and over us and her let the choir of the divine apostles, the assemblage of the holy Fathers, the inheritance of the faithful, and all the stewards of grace exult. Let Eutyches and Dioscorus mourn, let Nestorius lament, let Severus be covered in shame, and Timotheus who consents to him; let them farewell, as many as

^A invent lies against us, as you wrote. We do not side with the man-worshipper Nestorius, nor are we led astray by his perverse opinion into introducing two hypostases into the one Christ, for the orthodox fullness; but we confess the one Christ and Lord and God of ours, to be adored in one hypostasis even after the union, with the two natures having been united into one hypostasis indivisibly and inconfusibly, both "out of two" and "in two," ^B and we say and believe that Christ is in two natures even after the union.

The Exposition of the faith, therefore, which was written and sent to our majesty by your Reverence, was read by us and seemed full of wisdom and truth, and not alien nor discordant from our holy Church, especially if one considers its intent and the sum of the truth; although sometimes its diction, which is unusual for us, pricks the reader. For the fact that the human substance, which was taken from the most pure and most holy Virgin and Theotokos, retained the immutability and unchangeability ^C of its own nature even after the union, removes all doubt concerning the doctrine and confession of the holy and ecumenical fourth synod, as well as the epistle of the great among the saints, Leo, Pope of Rome, whom our holy Church has always called and calls the column of orthodoxy; and it does not cease to call him so, and to call the fact that the nature taken from the most immaculate and super-holy Virgin and Theotokos remained, even after the union, unchangeable and immutable in its own nature. It is better to say and to write, however, that in the hypostatic ineffable union, ^D and after the union, the natures remained unchangeable and unconvertible, undivided and inseparable, rather than that the manifestation of the natures remained unchangeable. For things concerning dogmas should be said and written nominally and not periphrastically, and especially in those regions and places where anything ambiguous is suspected, and where anything is seen to be called into controversy. Therefore, to say that Christ is from two natures, and in two natures, and having two natures, is the height of orthodoxy and accords strictly with the apostolic and patristic accuracy; but to proclaim one nature in Him after the union is manifestly contrary to the right doctrine handed down by the Fathers. And though some strive to put forward I know not what pretexts, and to color the deformity of a false dogma with some color of persuasive words, which cannot be received at all due to the various pitfalls and ugliness of such a doctrine: why is there a need to provide this ground for foolish error, and to offer no unsuitable opportunity to those who follow and defend a spurious dogma? What is the utility of these colors, and contorted arguments, and, as it were, excuses? Or why should one labor for this vain and fruitless circumlocution? For just as it is necessary to believe with the heart unto righteousness, and not to pollute the mind with any absurd thought, so it is just to confess with the tongue unto salvation, and not even in word or syllable, whether we write or speak, to use speech that might be an occasion of scandal, and to belch this forth into a clouding of the bright and diaphanous light of the apostolic and patristic teaching.

Why do we force ourselves ^A to whitewash the wall at all? I will wipe away, he says, the wall and him who whitewashes it; that is to say, the falsehood, and him who strives to introduce and cover it up. Far be it to speak thus, if it is evil to speak of one nature in Christ; let it be cast aside once and for all, let it be thrown to the dogs, let it be buried in the abyss of forgetfulness, and let it not, even by way of a mere sound dissolving fruitlessly into the air, annoy our ears.

Three primary opinions have been set forth regarding the union of the natures in Christ: that of division, that of confusion, and that which is strictly called [the teaching of] union. The first two have mocked and played with the children of heretics. ^B Let the insane Nestorius be the midwife of the first, and let him fall into his own labor pains, and be dragged down into the abyss of Hades, and sit with Satan, the father of lies. As for the second, let the mindless Eutyches and Dioscorus, with their most miserable sect, have it for their own mental confusion and blindness, they who have fashioned and forged a spurious dogma for themselves, and who preserve the property of neither part of the united natures. The synod of the holy Fathers long ago proscribed and condemned both opinions. As for the third, the unconfused and undivided union of the two natures, it knows that the items united hold their own properties without deficiency, owing to their unturnable and unchangeable reason; yet it makes these commonly belong to one [subject] by reason of the very substance of the union, so that the things that are properly of one are truly common to the whole, and those that are common to the whole ^C turn out to be proper to the other, owing to the unconfused property of both. The word of truth, therefore, knows that which is identical according to person, but that which is distinct according to nature. But for those who speak of one nature in Christ after the union, the manner of the mixing is inferred, and the difference of the natures is not preserved, even if they themselves do not wish it. Whence, to speak of one nature in Christ our God and Saviour after the union is slippery and dangerous.

And falsely and ignorantly do those who babble in this way bring forward man as an example. ^D For a human being is a composite, and is said to be one nature, because he does not strictly admit the reasons and names of the things from which he is composed; for it is not possible to say that a man is strictly called either soul or body; nor does he admit those reasons, even if he is said to possess soul and body. But Christ our God, constituted of divinity and humanity, admits both the names and the reasons of the natures from which he is constituted; for he himself is God and man, and admits those designations of nature...

No one, therefore, will say that he is composed of one nature, or is one nature, after the union. And in another sense, man is called one nature because it is predicated of the many atoms that underlie him, and these are said to share in the same nature as it; which is something no one would say of Christ, nor could even form in the movements of their mind. ^B Since, therefore, the most holy Cyril, who is among the saints, is found in many and various of his own writings—as your reverence also signified in the letter sent by you to our Majesty—to proclaim and teach two natures in Christ after the union, for what reason would anyone provide a pretext for contradiction by saying that he also spoke of one nature in him after the incarnation? For, in every way, one must either believe that he uttered and wrote such a statement in passing, as it seemed to him, or that he used the term "nature" more loosely for "person," as we know he himself elsewhere, and others of the classic Fathers, have done; or that he spoke of one nature regarding the divinity of Christ, yet in such a way that he demonstrated the human as well, by adding "incarnate"; or, finally, that the holy man spoke in that way according to some other sense, understanding, or manner of economy, which he did not put forward to harm the true doctrine of piety and to stir up scandal and opposition for himself. ^C Since, therefore, the truth has been examined, and all our holy Fathers and teachers, those great lights of the holy Church of God, agree therein, it is useless now to object, to force, and to tenaciously hold onto that little word which divides and lacerates the Church—that is, the one body of Christ—especially since that little word can be corrected by many other things, and has not troubled the Fathers of later times. Our piety, therefore, gives thanks to God, the giver of all good things, who has already opened for us the doors of peace and union. Truly, He will crown this concord, entered into by you through yourself, which pertains to all your fellow-servants and the pontiffs subject to you and the whole flock, with a happy outcome; and He will effect a full and, without any exception, unity of opinion, to the glory of His own name and the ignominy of the invisible enemy. ^D

DISPUTATION

of the Romans, Manuel, who is Christ-loving and God-crowned, and in the second year and third month of the reign of our God-crowned emperor, lord Alexios Comnenos, his son, on the twentieth day of the second month, we arrived a second time at Roman Koula, and having greeted the Catholicos of the Armenians on behalf of the emperor, we delivered to him the imperial divine letter, which was a response to his public epistle. ^A Then, having greeted him also on behalf of the ecumenical patriarch, we handed over to him the patriarchal letter addressed to him. With extreme pleasure and great joy, he asked us about the happiness and well-being of the emperor and the state of the Churches. And we, having given the appropriate responses, went off to rest. ^B When evening had fallen, we sent to the Catholicos, through Michael the interpreter, the secret letter of the emperor, which was a reply to the secret letter of the Catholicos. The secret letter of the emperor was as follows:

Manuel, in Christ God faithful, Porphyrogenitus, God-crowned, mighty lord, exalted, ever-Augustus, and emperor of the Romans, Comnenos, to the most reverend and most worshipful Catholicos of the Armenians, his grace.

The letter of your reverence, sent through the man subject to my majesty, the master Theorianos, reached my majesty, and through it I learned that you truly wish to walk in the path of justice and, as the sacred oracle says, have become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven. ^C Since, therefore, we see that you, who are the head, are in agreement with the three ecumenical synods, and indeed also with the fourth, we have great hope that the members will follow the head, and that whatever has hitherto loosened the bond of concord will be removed from the midst. With a glad heart, therefore, we receive the firm decree of your reverence concerning the orthodox faith, and we deem that you will be a path and door for the rest toward the right faith, and toward cleansing, with the most sharp sickle of the Word given to you from God, the tares which the devil had sown in the field of Christ, ^D so that it may be winnowed far away from the pure wheat of the evangelical threshing floor. Therefore, we have again sent to your reverence the man subject to my majesty, Theorianos, along with the monk Atmanos, so that just as you have already privately directed the doctrine of truth by a straight rule, so also you might manage the matter well in the general assembly of the Armenian Church: and that thus, from the full gathering of these men, light may arise.

Fare well. Written in the same month, in the fourth indiction. ^A

When these letters had been read before the Catholicos by the interpreter Michael, and he heard that the name of Atmanus was written therein, the Catholicos said: "The mystery was unknown to Atmanus; how then is his name placed in the letter?" And Michael said: "It is the will of the emperor that he also should be cognizant of this matter, just as the philosopher is." The Catholicos, upon hearing this, groaned from the depths of his heart, and for the time being kept silent. And this indeed was the secret letter of the emperor; but the public letter read literally as follows:

"The letter sent to my Majesty by your Reverence was brought, and was shown to the most holy and ecumenical patriarch and to the sacred and divine synod of the most holy Great Church of God. My Majesty has approved whatever was stated by your Reverence concerning the two natures in the one hypostasis of Christ, that is, in the one person, and concerning the unconfused and indivisible union, as being in accordance with the dogmas of the holy Fathers. But because the speaking of one nature in the one hypostasis of Christ, which is from two natures, is something that we find to be entirely discordant with the definitions of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, and condemned by the myriad opinions of the holy Fathers, as it favors those heretics who assert a confusion of the two natures in Christ—for although we find the great Cyril somewhere saying one nature of the Word incarnate, the Church does not understand this expression in the way that it pleases the Armenians to interpret it; but the divine Cyril himself clarifies this sufficiently in his various discourses—therefore, we send again to your God-fearing Reverence my Majesty's subject, Theorianus, and Atmanus, the abbot of the Armenian monastery in Philippopolis, so that in a gathering celebrated among you, as your Reverence promised, a question may be raised regarding this point—which is indeed, among other things, of the gravest importance, as it is the primary cause of the schism that exists between us—and that discourse may also be held concerning the other chapters of controversy, and those which were not mentioned in the previous disputation. And thus, with the help of the peace-making Christ, with every stumbling block removed, may those things that are divided be joined; and according to the oracle of the Lord, let us all become one flock, established under one leader and shepherd, the God-man Jesus. Furthermore, your Reverence may safely entrust faith to the things that shall be spoken by our envoys."

^B The Patriarchal Letter.

"Great peace," says the Scripture, "to those who love the law, and there is no scandal for them, but a bond of God."

^A love of God, and the spiritual bond, and the condition of those who glory in His name. Now, nothing unifies as much as the most unalloyed faith in Him, and the word of truth, which is blameless in every respect, as it holds fast to correctness. And as far as he who desires discord and dissension moves away from God and the light of knowledge, so much does he who prefers His peace before all other things draw near to God. For holiness is joined to this peace. For "Follow peace," says the sacred Scripture, "and holiness." For such as these behold the glory of the Lord with unveiled face. Being in the midst of this light, our most divine emperor—not only pursuing the peace of God, both day and night, and before his own worldly cares—this concern ^B persistently leads the way. Therefore, he is glorified in all things, and he possesses the divine aid in the highest degree, and he is magnified because his great deeds and the God-crowned crown of his empire are submitted to by almost all the earth, and he is fearful to all those around him. But since he is a friend of man and, in truth, a king and a father, and wishes to benefit the churches, he fosters an unceasing love, so that he may gather all the churches on earth into one faith, and unify them according to the God-taught ^C union. And the craftsman found the whole material of the building useful, that is to say, your reverence; for as soon as he spoke and wrote, and at the same time found your piety, it was not hardened or repelled by the matter, but was docile and skillful, and thirsting for and eagerly seizing the harmony according to God. And the seeds that have been cast are indeed good. May God also give the end worthy of the goodness, virtue, and zeal of the king, and a prosperous result according to your own zeal. We, therefore, and the holy Church of God with us, have rejoiced at this concern of our holy emperor, and at your own docile and praiseworthy disposition. ^D And as for the scientific explanations of the divine Scriptures, the artful objections, and your ready assent to their solutions, truly admiring your genuinely noble and distinguished simplicity, we render thanks to God with all our hearts: whose goodness may He grant to overlook our sins, so that we may finally see the day of salvation, and may the heavenly and God-like powers rejoice at the concord of the chosen people and the heritage of God, and may the head turn the glory to the members of His body, and may His benevolence and humanity become that which binds and gathers together the divided! And may the holy king lead the way in this good work after God, and may the holy and most reverend general Nerses follow and support it, with whom may the entire assembly of the subordinate bishops, and indeed the whole nation of the Armenians, conspire. And neither reed nor hay shall be mixed into this building, which is fixed upon the immovable foundation, Christ our God, Lord, King, and Savior. Behold, both our mediocrity and our holy apostolic Church have ambitiously claimed for themselves a share in holiness.

^A for your sanctity, and are prepared for your reception. Having become of one faith, may we together, with a cleansed conscience and without any scandal, eat the divine, life-giving, and saving bread, and may we participate in his mystical supper without shame, and together lift up glory to his name. Be well, most honorable and, in the Lord, beloved General, most holy man.

After two days, we were summoned to the synod and arrived. ^B Silence having fallen, the Catholicos began to discourse concerning the one nature, establishing that it is good to say that Christ is one nature, and that the right faith suffers no detriment from this. The General acted thus, not because he himself judged it so, but because there were present at this synod his bishops who had not been at the previous gathering, but who had heard by report that the General had crossed over to the side of the Romans and had written a secret letter to the Emperor, saying that he accepted the fourth synod. On this account they were angry at the General, who now behaved in this way to remove this opinion from them. But we, being ignorant of the General’s purpose, resisted him vehemently. His disputation with us, however, was of this kind:

GENERALIS. Having read the sacred letter, I have perceived that the most sacred King accuses us of saying that Christ is one nature; and for this reason, he says, he has sent you, so that we might today institute a discussion on this chapter and on the others of which mention was not made in the previous disputation. For my part, I thought that, since we speak of two natures to exclude confusion, and again of one on account of their inseparability, nothing further is demanded of us; for while we affirm one, we avoid the division of Nestorius; while we assert two, we turn aside from the confusion of Eutyches. ^C If, therefore, you demand anything beyond this from us, we will not comply. For the holy Fathers also sometimes speak of Christ as having two natures, sometimes as one; they are in no way repugnant to themselves or to each other, but because neither expression, if rightly understood, departs from orthodoxy. But if perhaps some person—an enemy to God and to himself—tears apart the words of the holy Fathers with a false interpretation, we certainly will never disapprove of those things which have been rightly written and understood; for if we were minded to do so, we would also pluck away very many expressions of the holy Gospel and other hagiographical books. For behold, the sacrilegious thieves of the letter have brought forth some heresy from almost every expression of the holy Scriptures.

THEORIANUS. In the previous disputation also, we desired to be instructed by your great holiness: which of the holy Fathers and where did he say that Christ is one ^D nature?

^A And this you have not yet demonstrated; now, therefore, if you are able, demonstrate it.

GEN. I am ready to bring this forward. In the letter to Acacius of Melitine, the blessed Cyril sets this forth quite clearly; for he says these things: “The things from which the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ consists, perceived as it were by concepts, we say are two natures joined together; but after the union, as the division into two is now removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as that of one—though indeed having become human and having been incarnate.”

THEOR. I marvel, lord, how you promised to show one thing and then brought forward another. For you promised to show the blessed Cyril saying that Christ is one nature, but he does not say this. But what does he say? “We believe the nature of the Son is one, as that of one,” and then he immediately added, “having become human and having been incarnate.” Leave aside, then, if you please, those expressions that speak of one nature of the Son; for there is no ambiguity about this, as it was resolved in our previous discussion, where we brought forward the great Athanasius speaking against Arius, ^B and how he understood two natures of the Word. But show me where it is written that Christ is one nature.

GEN. But he said: “After the union, as the division into two is now removed.” What do you ask for that is clearer than this?

THEOR. As for the words “as the division into two is now removed,” this refers to division into two Christs, or two persons, or two hypostases. If you wish to understand it as two natures, you must understand the statement in an orthodox manner, as: “The division into two natures, specifically and separately—that is, into the divine nature separately, and into the human nature separately—being now removed.” For from the time that the two natures were joined, they have remained ^C and always will remain inseparable. For this is what is meant by the expression used by the holy Fathers: “Indivisibly and inseparably to have the union joined into one hypostasis.” That the holy Cyril did not define Christ as [one] nature can be learned from many of his writings; for in many places he acknowledges two natures of Christ, as was shown in the previous discussion. For if he had taught that Christ is one nature, he would be found to be in conflict not only with all the holy Fathers, but even with himself. ^D At any rate, in his letter to John, Bishop of Antioch, concerning peace—for I shall omit the passages we previously cited in our former disputation, which were brought forward at that time—he says quite clearly: “As for the evangelical expressions regarding the Lord, we know that the theologians make some common to one person, while they divide others and attribute them to two natures; and they judge the more sublime ones to pertain to the divinity of Christ, and the humble ones to his humanity.” He who thinks and writes in this way, how could he have defined something contrary to his own dogma? For he says that some expressions are made common to one person, and others are attributed divisibly to two natures. And then, in what follows, he says: “So also the most wise Peter: Christ, he says, for our sake in

carne passo; non autem in ineffabilis divinitatis ^A natura. » Do you see how he does not say that the divine nature suffered, but Christ, that is, in the flesh, which is to say, in the human nature? Furthermore, in his treatise *On the Trinity*, he says: « The most wise Paul, and indeed the entire assembly of the saints, recognizes and employs a twofold way of speaking concerning the Word, after the union with the flesh has taken place. » Do you see how he speaks of a twofold way of speaking after the Word was united to the flesh? How then could this same Father consider flesh and divinity to be one nature, he who openly proclaims two natures? Again, in his response to the letter of John, he proposes the great Athanasius as his leader, speaking thus: « That we follow the opinions of the holy Fathers everywhere, and especially those of our blessed and illustrious Father Athanasius, and that we must take care not to depart from them even in the slightest, let your holiness be persuaded of this, and let no other person doubt it. » Let us hear, therefore, what the great Athanasius says concerning this chapter, a treatise which Saint Cyril attributes to him. For writing to Epictetus, bishop of the Corinthians, he says: « Who has ever heard these things? Who has taught or learned them? For out of Zion shall go forth the law of God, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. From where, then, have these things come forth? What hell has spewed out the claim that the body born of Mary is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word? » For certainly, just as we call the Word consubstantial with the Father because He possesses one and the same nature as He, so too he who says the body is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word confesses the body and the divinity to be of one and the same nature. For this reason our Christ and Savior calls heretics the gates of hell: « And the gates of hell, » He says, « shall not prevail against it » (Matt. xvi, 18), that is, against the Church: ^B because, clearly, many enter into hell, that is, into perdition, through heresy as through a gate. But the great Athanasius does not call heresy the gates of hell, but hell itself; and it seems to me that if the great Athanasius had known anything worse than hell, either a thing or a name, he would rather have used that appellation to denote those who entertain such thoughts. But let us look at what he says further on: « But in order that, if I remain entirely silent, the authors of these evils may not seize upon it as an opportunity for shamelessness, it will be useful to mention a few things from the divine Scriptures: for perhaps, so affected by shame, they will put an end to the devising of these most vile opinions. Ho, you! By what weight of arguments are you driven to say that the body is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word? » (For it is worth beginning from here, so that when the foulness of this opinion has been made plain, all the rest might be seen to be of the same worth.) « Certainly, in the divine Scriptures there is nothing of the sort to ^C be found: for they themselves affirm that God was in a human body. Likewise, the Fathers who gathered at Nicea did not say that the body, but the Son Himself, the Lord, is consubstantial with the Father: and they confessed that He indeed is from the substance of the Father, but that the body is from Mary, with the Scriptures as their guides. Either, then, deny the Nicene council, and as heretics... ^D

^A obtrude these dogmas; or if you wish to be the sons of those Fathers, do not pursue a sentiment different from their writings.” Do you hear what the great Athanasius has said? But let us see the rest: “If, he says, the Word is consubstantial with the Father, according to the confession of the Nicene Fathers, the Father Himself also will be consubstantial with the body which was made from the earth. Why therefore do you still find fault with the Arians, who call the Son a creature, when you yourselves affirm the Father to be consubstantial with created things; and passing over to another impiety, say that the Word has been converted into flesh, and bones, and hair, and nerves, and into the whole body, and has changed His own nature? It remains, then, for you to say openly that He Himself was made from the earth: for the nature of bones and of the whole body is from the ^B earth. What is this great madness, then, that you should even fight with yourselves? For while you say that the Word is consubstantial with the body, you signify one thing with another; but when you affirm that He has been converted into flesh, you attribute change to the Word Himself. Who would bear you any longer as you babble these things, or at least [as you rave] them? For you have surpassed every heresy in impiety. For if the Word is consubstantial with the body, the memory and the ministry of Mary will be superfluous, since the body would be able to exist from eternity before Mary, just as the Word Himself is, if, according to you, He is consubstantial with the body; and what need was there, then, for the descent of the Word, that He might put on that which was consubstantial to Him?” And after this: “For the body is not consubstantial ^C with the divinity, but was born of Mary; the Word Himself, however, has by no means been converted into bones and flesh, but has existed in the flesh.” And a little later: “Many err while they make the creature equal to the Creator.” But what need is there to recount everything and to prolong the discourse to satiety? It is certainly possible to learn from the many writings of the great Athanasius that he teaches two natures, and that he vehemently rebukes those who speak of one nature of Christ. Therefore, Saint Cyril, who strongly asserts that one must obey the opinions of the saints and especially of the blessed Athanasius, and who forbids turning away from them, as has been demonstrated above, could he ever have thought things contrary to these? Away with such a suspicion! It is necessary, therefore, for you to bring this ambiguous expression of the blessed Cyril ^D to the right sense, and to interpret it according to the standard of the other saints, who manifestly confess the two natures of our Savior Jesus Christ: which matter has been made clear in the former conversation, and now again, and in many other labors of the same Saint Cyril, as we have often said. But if you still resist, we do not permit ourselves to argue further with you concerning this matter; but we will follow the apostolic warning which says: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition avoid.”

GEN. We are not heretics, but orthodox by the grace of Christ, inasmuch as we are illuminated by Saint Gregory, whose doctrines and traditions we hold.

^A THEOR. If you were keeping his traditions, as you say, you would not be setting yourselves against the Fathers. You have surely heard the testimony of the great Athanasius recently produced by us, in which he calls those who say that the Word and the flesh are one nature infernal; and you have heard how he says further on: "For you have declined into impiety more than any other heresy." Do not be ashamed to be refuted by us, who are nothing as regards worldly fortune and literature, but think of that ancient prophet Balaam, who suffered himself to be corrected even by an ass.

When these things had been said, Atmanus said to the Catholicos: "I am ignorant of how to speak of hidden mysteries; one thing I do know: that you wrote to the Emperor, and signaled as much to him without writing, through this companion of mine, the philosopher whom you know. And for this reason I have now come on a settled matter, not for further debate. I ask you, therefore, whether you uphold what you signaled to the Emperor; if not, say so clearly, that we may return." Hearing these words, those bishops who had already been offended by the General began to grow rowdy, and as they were near one another, they said: "Behold, what we heard before is indeed true." Therefore, a short time having passed and the tumult now subsiding, the General gesturing with his hand and commanding silence, said to us: "Much has been spoken today; withdraw now for rest, for we shall hear you again another time." So we withdrew.

^B Nine days passed thereafter without the Catholicos signaling anything to us, for, sick at heart, he kept himself entirely from public view. But Atmanus, knowing that he was grieving over the betrayed secret, and that he was particularly offended at the man who had revealed it, having met with the General, said: "I suppose your holiness is angry with me, but without cause: for what you deem a secret is a commonplace story throughout all Romania. For my companion wrote this in the disputation which was read before the synod and in the palace, and more than a hundred copies of it were written out, so that the matter became known throughout all Romania. You are therefore angry with me without good reason; for I ought rather to justly complain against you, for having concealed this from me, your kinsman and fellow-believer, while you revealed it to an alien. For if you had trusted in me alone, the secret would still be preserved, and not scattered to the common people as it is now."

^C After nine days had passed, the General sent to us his nephew, Bishop Gregory called "the Small," and Bishop Isaac and the teacher Stephen, who said to me in private (with Atmanus and the priest Michael also being present): "Our master signifies to you that he entrusted to you, as to an honest man and a Christian, a secret as if to God; and you promised him you would tell it to no one except the Emperor. Now it is clear that you have broken the faith of that secret; ^D and for this...

^A reason the business of the union has completely grown cold." To this Theorianus said: "I remember that the letters addressed to the Emperor, which the General had sealed and which he had privately read aloud to me, were entrusted, and he signified to me in words that I should speak to the Emperor about the union. I admit that I was commanded by the General that I should say nothing of these letters to anyone except the Emperor, and that I should report his words to the Emperor in secret. I, however, acted just as I had promised, and I kept my word. That I may demonstrate this, I shall set forth the sequence of events. I handed the sealed letters to the Emperor; I spoke the words entrusted to my faith in a secret chamber, with only the logothete present. Afterward, I had no power to restrain the Emperor, nor to prevent him when he wished to speak of it to the Church, or to his senate and council. But if by chance the General is distressed and wonders how the Emperor did not preserve the secret, let him know that almost everyone among us, with the exception of the Emperor, denied the orthodoxy of the General and did not imagine that he would come to an agreement of union; for they said that he perverts ^B the divine Scriptures and twists them to his own will by a false interpretation, and although he claims in words to follow the holy Fathers, in deed he is opposed to them. To these accusers the Emperor openly showed the letters of the General. Hence it is clear why now almost all the Romans speak so openly in favor of the General." And the other associates confirmed this account of Theorianus with their testimony. Wherefore the General, abating much of his anger, at that time acquitted Theorianus of this charge. On the following day, having been called to the synod, he said to us: "Regarding the two natures in Christ, both then and now enough has been said; but since the epistle of the Emperor admonishes us that we should discuss other chapters also, if any of you pleases to say anything, we shall gladly listen."

THEOR. It has been reported to us that the Armenians offer wine in the divine mysteries without mixing water with it. We wish to know whence they received this tradition.

GEN. The divine Chrysostom, in the eighty-fifth homily on the Gospel according to Matthew, speaks thus: "Why, having risen from the supper, did He drink not water but wine? Certainly, to root out another wicked heresy. For since there are some who use water in the ^C mysteries, the Lord demonstrated in advance, that when He instituted this mystery, and when, having risen, He set forth a common table, He had used wine." Do you see how the divine one terms the use of water in the divine mysteries a wicked heresy? And again: "From the fruit," he says, "of the vine; but the vine produces wine, not water." What more clear than this do you seek? But also in the eighty-fifth homily on the Gospel according to John, concerning that text, "There came forth blood and water," he speaks thus: "Not in vain nor by some chance did these fountains come forth, but because from both of these the Church is constituted. The initiated know, being regenerated by water, we are nourished by blood and flesh; this is the beginning of the mysteries, that when you approach the revered cup ^D as if drinking from the side itself, so...

you might approach. ^A Having this guide and teacher, the Armenians do not mix water into the divine mysteries, as you do. For the vine produces wine, not water. What could be clearer than this? And again: “Regenerated by water, yet nourished by blood and flesh.” Do you see how he clearly distinguishes water for baptism and blood for the divine communion?

THEOR. Tell me truly, did the Church receive the mystery of divine baptism in the Jordan, or upon the cross?

GEN. The baptism which Christ received in the Jordan was imperfect; for it was by the Forerunner that he was baptized. Indeed, Gregory the Theologian says in his discourse, “Again, my Jesus”: ^B “John also baptized, not yet in the Jewish manner—for it was not in water alone, but also unto repentance—yet it was not entirely spiritual; for he did not add ‘in the Spirit.’”

THEOR. I am amazed that you say this. Did not the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove? Did not the Father cry out from above? Was not He who was being baptized the Son? Where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are—the most pure manifestation of the holy Trinity—could that baptism be imperfect? When, then, do you say Christ’s baptism was perfected?

GEN. At his Passion, of course, when blood and water came forth; for then he washed away the sin of Adam. Therefore, he also suffered death by ^C the cross in the Place of the Skull, so that the divine blood, flowing down, might wash away Adam’s transgression. For the great Basil says in his commentary on Isaiah: “Such is the report that has remained by unwritten tradition in the Church, that Judea was the first land to provide a dwelling place for Adam after he had been cast out of Paradise, and that he was settled there for the consolation of the blessings which he had lost. Therefore, it was also the first to receive the dead man Adam, who paid the penalty of sin by his death.”

THEOR. To say that the Lord’s baptism in the Jordan was imperfect seems to me very bold and alien to the Church. For the divine Chrysostom says in his second homily on the first chapter of Matthew: ^D “For this laver contained something of the old and something of the new. In that he was baptized by the prophet, it showed the old; but the descent of the Spirit indicated the new. And as someone standing midway between two things separated from one another, extending both hands and taking hold of them from either side, unites them, so also did he himself act, joining the Old to the New, the divine nature to the human, his own to ours.” Furthermore, the Church is accustomed to read the two sermons on baptism composed by Gregory the Theologian at the time of the Lights, not at the time of the Passion. “Again Jesus, and again the mystery.” And a little later,

^A “For the holy day of the Lights, to which we have arrived and which we have been deemed worthy to celebrate today, draws its origin from the baptism of my Christ.” And again: “It is the time of regeneration; let us be born from above.” Does this regeneration seem imperfect to you? And towards the end of the discourse he says this: “Jesus baptizes, but in the Spirit. This at last is perfection.” And how is He not God? How then do you say that the baptism of Christ was not perfect?

GEN. Gregory does not say, “Jesus is baptized,” but, “He baptizes.” And it is clear from this that he is not speaking about the baptism in the Jordan, by which He Himself was baptized, but of that by which Christ baptized others, as the Evangelist says: ^B “After these things Jesus came with his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he stayed with them and baptized.”

THEOR. Read a little further, and you will find, having proceeded a little, that Jesus did not baptize. For it is written that the Pharisees heard that Jesus was making more disciples and baptizing than John, although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples.

GEN. And what comes of this, if He baptized through His disciples, as now through us?

THEOR. And how could they baptize, not having yet been baptized themselves? For the divine Scriptures say that the apostles were baptized after the resurrection. For Luke says in the Acts: “He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me: for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

GEN. It should therefore have been said ^C by the theologian Gregory: “Jesus was baptized, He did not baptize.”

THEOR. He ought to have said, “He baptized,” that is to say, Adam and us; for He Himself had no need of cleansing.

GEN. And from where did you receive this, to also include water?

THEOR. First, we have stated for what reason Chrysostom spoke, uprooting another wicked heresy. There were some who said that wine was the work and creation of the devil; and therefore that it was the cause of many absurdities. And they said that Christ did not drink wine, being a product of Satan, but a new wine which He had created from water. These men used only water in the divine mysteries; wherefore they were called *Aquarians* by the holy Fathers. Wishing ^D to overturn this wicked heresy, the divine Chrysostom said the words which we wrote above. For if this was not his intention, what need was there to say: “And rising after the mysteries, with a common table set before him, he used wine”? He introduces the Lord, therefore, as not loathing wine. Now, therefore, let us demonstrate from where the Church received [the tradition of] using wine and water to perform the divine mystery.

^A James, the brother of the Lord, in the divine liturgy composed by him, says thus: "Similarly, after supper, taking the cup, and mixing [it] of wine and water, looking up to heaven and showing it to Thee, the God and Father, giving thanks, blessing, sanctifying, filling with the Holy Spirit, he gave it to His holy and blessed disciples and apostles, saying: Drink of this all of you; this is my blood of the New Testament, and the rest."

GEN. From whence is it evident that this liturgy has the brother of the Lord, James, as its author? And yet, at the end of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, there is a catalogue of the books whose use is in the Church, and yet mention of this liturgy is not made there, but only of one epistle of the holy James.

THEOR. This liturgy was ratified by the ecumenical synod which is called the sixth. ^B

GEN. But I have not recognized this synod to this day. I desire, however, to understand what the synod says concerning this matter.

THEOR. The synod in Constantinople, gathered in the Trullo of the royal palace under Justinian the most pious emperor—which is itself called the sixth, because it is the completion of the sixth synod—issued canons for church discipline. This, therefore, the catholic and holy synod, in its thirty-second canon, says: "Since it has come to our knowledge that in the Armenian country they offer only wine on the holy table, not mixing water with it, [those] who perform the unbloody sacrifice, putting forward as a pretext John Chrysostom, who says in the interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew these things: ^C 'For what reason did He not drink water when He arose, but wine? That he might utterly overthrow another wicked heresy. For because there are some who perform the mysteries with water, He showed that both when He delivered the mysteries and when He arose and sat at a common table without mysteries, He used wine, from the fruit, He says, of the vine; and the vine produces wine, not water.'" And by this saying the Armenians think the admixture of water in the holy altar is condemned by the holy doctor. Therefore, lest they labor any longer in ignorance of the truth, we explain the opinion of the holy Father in an orthodox sense. For since the wicked heresy of the Hydroparatastae had long existed, who used only water instead of wine in their sacrifices, ^D the holy man put forth the aforementioned words for the sake of refuting the doctrine of this heresy and showing that they were straying from the apostolic tradition. For indeed, he taught his own church also, in which he held the pastoral office, to mix water with wine when the unbloody sacrifice was to be performed—the cause being added, that from the side of our Liberator and Savior Christ God, the mixture of blood and water flowed. Indeed, throughout the entire Church, in which the spiritual luminaries of the Fathers have shone, this divine order is constantly kept; for both James, the brother of the Lord, and the great Basil, who consigned the mystical liturgies to writing, thus altogether taught the sacred chalice to be mixed with water and wine in the divine mystery. And in every Church, where the spiritual luminaries have shone, this God-given order prevails; for even James the broth-

brother of the Lord, and the great Basil, having handed down the mystical liturgy in writing, have thus delivered that the holy chalice in the divine liturgy be completed from water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage have also so explicitly expressed it, that nothing beyond the body and blood of the Lord should be offered in the holy things, as the Lord Himself also delivered, that is, of bread and wine mixed with water. If, therefore, any bishop or presbyter acts not according to the order delivered by the apostles, and, not mixing water with the wine, offers the immaculate sacrifice in this way, let him be deposed as one who proclaims the mystery imperfectly and innovates upon what has been delivered. Behold, this great and ecumenical council also acknowledges the liturgy of James, which you are ignorant of; accept, therefore, the testimony of so many and such great holy Fathers; and let us speak no more of these matters.

GEN. I hold all these as one man, who has put forth his own private opinion in writing.

THEOR. Do you then hold the legates of the blessed Pope of old Rome, and the [patriarchs] of Constantinople, and Alexandria, the patriarch of Antioch, and of Jerusalem, and so many holy Fathers, and Emperor Justinian—do you hold all of these, I say, as one man? And do you consider yourself, being one, to be superior to an ecumenical council and less liable to error?

GEN. I told you, I submit to none of these.

THEOR. I, for my part, am not equipped with other powers than the doctrines and books of the holy Fathers; for, being a sinner, I cannot perform miracles so as to overcome my adversaries with wonders and signs. If, therefore, you do not acquiesce to the words of the God-bearing men, I have labored among you in vain.

GEN. Let us leave the question about water; for it is not opposed to the faith.

THEOR. It is highly necessary; for without it, the liturgy does not become perfect.

GEN. If, therefore, you have other authorities, let them be brought forward.

THEOR. What profit is it to me to bring forward many authorities, since you do not accept these? Nevertheless, let us see, if you please, what Gregory of Nyssa, philosophizing on this topic, teaches most elegantly. In his catechetical discourse, whose beginning is: "The catechetical discourse is necessary for those who preside over the mystery of piety," he says: "Just as those who have consumed poison by someone's treachery extinguish the deadly power with another medicinal potion (for it is necessary that, as the lethal [potion], so also the salutary medicine must be admitted within the vitals of man, so that from them the power of the helper may be distributed to the entire body); so when we have tasted that which..."

^A has gathered and reconciled what was dissolved, we have need again of the gathered [substance], so that such an antidote, having come to be within us, may drive out by its own sympathy the damage of the poison previously placed in the body. What then is this? It is nothing other than that body which was shown to be stronger than death, and which became the beginning of our life. For just as a little leaven, as the Apostle says, makes the whole lump like itself, so the body immortalized 24 by God, when it comes to be in our own, transforms and changes the whole toward itself. For just as when a corruption-inducing substance is mixed with a healthy one, the whole [mixture] that has been blended together is ruined, so too the immortal body, when it has come to be within him who has received it, has transformed the whole into its own nature. Yet, it is not possible for anything to be within the body otherwise than by being mixed into the vitals through food or drink; therefore, it is altogether necessary, in a manner possible for nature, to receive the life-giving power into the body. But since that God-receiving body alone has received this grace, and since it has been shown that it is not possible for our body to achieve immortality in any other way than by becoming partaker of incorruptibility through communion with the Immortal, it is proper to consider how it was possible for that one body to be continually distributed to so many myriads of ^B the faithful throughout the whole world, and to become whole in each one through a part, while the same [body] remains whole in itself.

On the necessity of physiological considerations

^C Therefore, so that faith, looking to what happens to us, may have no doubt concerning the subject proposed, it is necessary to delay our discourse a little upon 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 substance, but holds itself together and remains in being by the power flowing into it from without, which in ceaseless motion draws to itself what is useful and expels what is superfluous? And this power is and is called nourishment. But it is not the same for all bodies that are nourished, but a certain [kind] appropriate to each has been allotted by Him who governs nature. For some of the animals are nourished by digging up roots, while others find grass to be food; the food of the dog is meat, but bread is the food par excellence for man; and for the preservation and maintenance of moisture, drink is necessary—not water alone, but often seasoned with wine, to bring aid to the internal heat within us. Whoever, therefore, observes these things, understands ^D the increase of our body; for these foods, upon being received within us, become blood and flesh, as the nourishment passes into the form of the body on account of the power of its own transformation. These things having been clarified by us in this way, the mind...

^A must once again be recalled to the subject proposed. For it was asked how that one body of Christ vivifies the nature of all men (provided there is faith in them), being distributed to all and yet by no means diminished. Now, however, we are not far, I think, from a probable explanation. For if the subsistence of any body consists of nourishment—that is, of food and drink; and if the nourishment is bread, and the drink water mingled with wine; and if the Word of God was mingled with human nature, and having come in our body, did not innovate a different constitution for the nature, but provided for the preservation of the body assumed ^B by Himself through customary and suitable nourishment, maintaining His subsistence by food and drink—if the food was bread, then certainly he who sees the bread among us, as has already been said, sees in a way the human body, because when it is introduced into a man it becomes a human body. So then, that God-bearing body, having received the nourishment of bread, was in a certain way the same as that of the nourishment, as has been said, being transformed into the nature of the body. For that which is common to all men was also acknowledged in that flesh, that that body was also maintained by bread. The body was transformed by the indwelling of the Word of God to divine dignity. Rightly, therefore, do we now also believe that the bread, sanctified by the Word of God, is transformed into the body of the Word of God; for that body also was bread in its potentiality, but it was sanctified ^C by the overshadowing of the Word who tabernacled in the flesh. Since, therefore, the bread transformed in that body passed into divine power, through Him and in Him it becomes the same. For there, the grace of the Word made holy the body whose makeup was from bread, and in a way it was itself bread; and here likewise the bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified through the word of God and prayer, not by being drawn through eating into becoming the body of the Word, but by being immediately transformed into the body through the word, as has been said by the Word, that "This is my body" (25).

And since all flesh is also nourished by fluid (for without the association of moisture, that which is in us would not remain in life), just as we support the firmness of the body through hard and solid food, in the same way we also make the addition to the liquid ^D from a nature of the same kind; which, when it happens in us, is turned into blood through a transformative power, and especially if, through the wine, it receives the power for transformation into heat. Since, therefore, that God-bearing flesh also received this portion of nourishment for its own constitution, and God manifested to the world for this reason mingled Himself with the nature that receives Him, so that humanity might be deified together through communion with the divinity; for this reason, to all who believe in the dispensation of grace, He inserts Himself through flesh

the constitution of which consists of wine and water, and bread, being poured upon the bodies of those who believe, so that through union with the Immortal, man may also become a partaker of immortality. These things He grants by the power of the blessing, transmuting the nature of the visible elements into that [reality]. »

^B This discourse having been interpreted in this way, the General said: Verily, this discourse is the offspring of a wise mind, and it seems to be Nyssen’s; for he is accustomed to use examples of natural things to the highest degree. Nevertheless, I have not yet found this in the Armenian [version].

THEOR. Last year you told me that you possess Nyssen’s Commentaries on the Song of Songs; wherefore, if you please, let us hear what he also says therein about the water. Explaining, therefore, the words, "Where you pastor, where you lie down at midday," he says: "Show me where you pastor the flock, that having found the saving pasture, I may be filled with the eternal food, without which one cannot enter into life; and running to You, the fountain, I may drink of the divine draught; for if you pour forth for the thirsty, letting flow the water from your side—the iron having pierced this vein—he who has tasted of it becomes a fountain of water leaping up into eternal life."

^C GEN. I marvel how the Lord nowhere made mention of water: "He who eats my flesh," He says, "and drinks my blood," but He made no mention of water; and also at the supper, "This is my blood," and nowhere did He make mention of water. And the Apostle, "He who drinks unworthily," he says, "the blood of the Lord," adding nothing about the water. How is it that neither the Lord nor the Apostle said this?

THEOR. By saying "blood," He indicated the thing made of wine and water; for the blood of the Lord did not consist of wine alone, but of water, as Gregory of Nyssa demonstrated. If, therefore, the Lord had said, "This is my wine," it would have been necessary to add the water as well; but since He did not say "wine," by necessity He also passed over the water in silence, but said "blood," which is that which has been converted from both substances. Wherefore the demand for the mention of water by name is in vain. Besides, Scripture is accustomed to speak in this way when making a discourse about the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Wherefore, just as then, so also afterwards ^D [the writer] did not make mention of water; for those were shadows of ours. Writing, therefore, the...

^A blessed Paul says to the Hebrews: "Taking the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled the book itself and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has commanded to you." And he likewise sprinkled the tabernacle and all the instruments of sacred ministry with blood. And indeed, almost all things are accustomed to be purified with blood according to the rule of the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission. You have heard that the mixture of blood and water had come to pass first; yet in the sprinkling, he made mention of water. "This," he says, "is the blood of the covenant." And again, he similarly sprinkled the vessels of ministry with blood, and almost all things are purified by blood according to the law, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission; and having mentioned blood four times, he did not mention water. Shall we therefore deny this, because he did not say "water" there? And how then does he say it is "with water and scarlet wool"? Do not be surprised, therefore, my lord, if the Savior did not express the water in the Gospels. For we have learned from the catechetical address of Gregory of Nyssa that the body of the Lord consists of water and wine. Therefore, by saying "blood," he indicated the thing from both which had its origin. ^B

GEN. We have spoken sufficiently about this chapter. But when, by the grace of God, we celebrate the general synod, we shall report the things which have been argued by you on this matter, and whatever else the good God may deign to grant. Now, therefore, if you have another chapter in mind, put it forward.

THEOR. I heard that the day before yesterday, on the twenty-sixth of December, you celebrated the feast of the holy proto-martyr Stephen, and you read the sermon of [Gregory of] Nyssa composed for it, whose beginning is: "How beautiful is the sequence of good things!" And I marveled how you did this, since in this very sermon it is clearly demonstrated that you ought first to celebrate the Birthday of the Lord, and then the feast of the holy proto-martyr Stephen. You, however, celebrated the feast of the proto-martyr on the twenty-sixth of December, but you are about to celebrate the Birthday of the Lord on the sixth of January. How then does [the Nyssen] agree with you? For he says: "How beautiful is the sequence of good things, how sweet is the succession of joy! Behold one feast after another, behold we receive grace from grace. Yesterday the universal Lord feasted us at a festive meal; today, the imitator of the Lord." Do you hear what he says? ^C You celebrate the imitator with a solemnity, but you overlook the Lord! And believe me, I am ashamed on your behalf, that, when you are so clearly convicted, you do not wish to be corrected. I would indeed advise you, since you do not observe what the liturgical readings teach, to omit the readings themselves, lest, being perpetually rebutted by them, you suffer a heavier judgment.

GEN. To this the General, smiling, said: We have the prayer... ^D

of Saint Proclus of Constantinople on the protomartyr, whose beginning is: "The sensible sun indeed." And this sermon no less opposes us; for it says: "O wonderful deeds of a new king! Yesterday the mother brought him forth, and today the glorious Stephen was offered to him." But as concerns the feasts, as I said to you even last year, while that blessed Catholicos, my brother, was still living, in our familiar conversations with one another we used to say this: "Why do we keep the feast separately from everyone else? The Franks, Romans, Syrians, and every Christian nation agree and think as one regarding the feasts, but we Armenians alone differ from all."

THEOR. Even if this does not bring a blush to your face—the fact that when the whole Christian race abstains from labor, is occupied with holy praises, and rejoices in holidays throughout the whole world, you alone, with the Hebrews and Saracens, perform servile work (especially since your race studies the divine Scriptures greatly: for believe me, I do not speak to flatter, as I find you to be very learned in the holy Bible)—what then, when the Theologian Gregory says: "Christ is born, glorify him," and a little later, "This is the festival for us, this we celebrate today, the arrival of God to men"; and then in another sermon: "Again my Jesus, again a mystery"? When, therefore, you hear the word "Again," do you not understand that it is not on the same day that Christ’s Nativity and Baptism are to be celebrated?

GEN. This head of our discussion was sufficiently treated in the previous disputation and was correctly settled. We must not, therefore, perform an act already done.

THEOR. In truth, I am not performing an act already done; but what then escaped us due to the excessive abundance of material, we now intend to complete. For even when we spoke then of the sacred ointment, we did not confirm it with sacred authority—that it ought to be made from oil of olives—but were content only to refute your words. Now, if you please, we will also recite the authority, lest we appear, as says the proverb, to speak from our own belly. It is written in Exodus: "The Lord spoke to Moses saying: Take for yourself spices, of prime and chosen myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half this portion, that is two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet-smelling calamus likewise two hundred and fifty, and of cassia five hundred shekels according to the weight of the sanctuary, and oil of olives, and you shall make it holy anointing oil, a compound ointment according to the art of the perfumer; it shall be holy anointing oil." Did you hear? "Oil of olives," not of sesame, he said.

GEN. This sacred authority, even before you recited it, was known to us. But come, deliver to us in writing, if you please, all the chapters which the holy emperor and the holy Church of the Romans demand to be approved by us, so that the union may be made. For when these have been considered in common, we shall state our opinion on all things.

^A

THEOR. Then I gave these articles: namely, that the Armenians should anathematize those who affirm one nature in Christ—Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, Timothy Aelurus, and all who share their mind. And that they should confess our Lord Jesus Christ, one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one person, one hypostasis from two perfect natures united into one hypostasis, inseparably, indivisibly, unalterably, inconfusedly; and that it is not one Son of God and another of the Virgin, but the same Son of God and Son of man, two natures, one God and man; and in two natures the same one Christ possessing two natural wills, divine and human, not opposed to one another, but the human will following the divine will; and that they should recite the Trisagion without the words "who was crucified for us," and without the conjunction. And that they should celebrate the feasts at the same time as the Romans: the Annunciation of the Lord on the twenty-fifth of March, the Nativity on the twenty-fifth of December, the Circumcision on the eighth day after the Nativity of Christ, that is, on the first of January, the Baptism on the sixth of January, the Purification on the second of February, and in general all the Dominical feasts, as well as those of the most holy Theotokos, of the Forerunner, and of the holy apostles. That they should perform the divine Eucharist with unleavened bread and wine mixed with water. ^B That they should make the holy chrism from the oil of olives. That all Christians should stand inside the church when the divine liturgy is performed, except for those whom the holy canons debar, and likewise that they should attend the other services of the Church; that they should accept the seven ecumenical synods; and finally, that they should permit the election of the Catholicos [General] to be made solely by the Emperor of the Romans. After these articles had been given to the Catholicos, the Catholicos questioned us.

GEN. Do the Romans demand that all these things must necessarily be done by us, so that if one of them is missing, the union will not come to pass? Or are there some of these things which, if omitted, they will nevertheless admit us into the union?

THEOR. ^C These are indeed the things that cause the schism. However, the Church and the Emperor will perhaps have the authority to allow some of these things out of "oikonomia" [discretionary management] and not to cut off the union on their account; just as happened also with the Hungarians. For when holy Stephen, their own saint, baptized them, in order that the whole might not be lost, he allowed their bishops to have lawful wives, just as it is now the custom for our priests. And he did this after obtaining a brief from the Pope who was then in office, ^D a custom which holds even until this day among some of his region's bishops.

GEN. Tell us clearly: are there any of these chapters, excluding which, we might yet be received into perfect union?

THEOR. I suppose that just as you have your own mind explored, so too do you foresee the wills of those subject to you, and know well which of these things they will accept and which not. Wherefore, tell me rather, if you will, what things seem burdensome to the Armenians, and what things they would never be persuaded to tolerate.

GEN. I do not know. Perhaps some things will seem so to me, about which the synod will think otherwise.

THEOR. ^B If you, who are the head, are ignorant of this, how can I, who am a foot—or rather, not even a foot—among the Roman synod, have knowledge of what you ask? Nevertheless, I will venture a guess. The chapter concerning the election of the General is written for the sake of honor and your own utility and that of the Generals who succeed you; for it looks to the stability and firmness of the see, in that it would gain as a defender the holy Emperor. The Romans, however, I think, will not force you in this; nor will they coerce you even in the question of the Unleavened Bread, if you truly agree regarding the rest.

GEN. I will bring all these things to the knowledge of the synod; and when I send my legates to the imperial city, I will signify in writing both to your holy synod and to the God-crowned Emperor which chapters were admitted and which not, and at the same time I will disclose the reasons for which some may perhaps have been rejected. And unless the enemy of mankind, the devil, disturbs this great business, as far as we are concerned (so may God help), it will not be hindered. For it is not proper for us to act with summed-up legal rigor, nor for you, if you truly desire union; but rather to be indulgent in certain matters that do not violate the faith; for the difference of ecclesiastical rites does not remove a man from the Christian religion. Now, however, if it pleases you, prepare for your return. For after your departure, I shall write to all my bishops, that either they may come themselves or send legates, as many as a grave cause prevents from coming to the synod. Moreover, it is necessary that I do not transact the business of the union without the General of Albania: for he occupies the throne of that Gregory who was the nephew of Saint Gregory of Great ^C Armenia, and I have a perpetual communion with him concerning spiritual matters, so that neither does anything without the other’s knowledge. There is between us a distance of, I believe, no less than three months' journey.

THEOR. And when are you going to assemble the synod? For you must designate for us a definite time, so that we may notify the Emperor and the Church.

^D [Regarding ecclesiastical men, this virtue is most appropriate; it is not necessary to accumulate testimonies for this matter. Sylvester, indeed, in his celebrated Bull to King Stephen says nothing about celibacy. But the same man, in a sermon to the bishops (at Mabillon, *Anecd.* ed. nov., p. 104), explains the words of Paul, "the husband of one wife," literally, so that a bigamist (that is, one who has been united to two wives, even if they be dead) should not be promoted to the episcopate; metaphorically, however, so that the bishop may not, after the catholic dogma, hold a heretical opinion; namely, that he should be called the man of one wife, that is, of the Church.]

(30) Concerning the origin of the Armenian patriarchate of Albania, which was second in dignity among the Armenian patriarchates, read the learned work bearing the title: *Compendio storico di memorie cronologiche concernenti la religione e la morale della nazione Armena*, vol. II, p. 9.

GEN. Not even I know, unless I ask in detail those who know the distances of the places. ^A THEOR. And you must allow enough time, so that each one may have sufficient count of his travel provisions. GEN. It must be done in this way; however, I intend to send a document to the emperor through my own men, and I will declare the appointed time of the synod. THEOR. Show us, if you please, the letter which you intend to send to the emperor. GEN. I will do this; now go, take your rest, and when I have finished the letter, I will show it to you.

On the next day, the Catholicos sent us the text of the letter to the emperor, the meaning of which, to speak in summary, was this: "We did not think that any of our people were scandalized by those who say one nature in Christ; for when correctly interpreted, this is not evil. But because some are scandalized, we completely cease to say one nature of Christ." ^B Afterward, the Catholicos wished to meet with Theorianus alone; and having summoned him late on the Sabbath, he said to him: "My bishops are scandalized at me, and it is necessary to take the scandal out of their hearts; for being scandalized, they will by no means obey me as their head, but will cavil, being as they are a stiff-necked and stubborn race. But tomorrow is Sunday, and many bishops are to be gathered, and almost all my nobles. Speak therefore, if you please, to them according to the wisdom given to you by God, assuring them that neither an arcane letter nor any statement ^C was sent by the Catholicos to the emperor, but only this: that if your majesty desires the union, no less do I also desire and wish and strive that it may come to pass." For Theorianus promised to do this; on the next day, having gathered a magnificent congregation, he summoned us, and having opened his mouth, Theorianus said:

Theorianus's Oratory

Nothing is so useful to men, and so productive of many and great goods, as to observe the commandments of God. ^D For this reason we are called servants of the living God, and we are deemed worthy to be and to be called heirs of the incomprehensible kingdom, and brothers of Christ, and sons of God; and what could be more blessed and desirable than this? This task, so great and difficult to accomplish, the source of numberless goods for us, the prophet and king and forefather of God, David, promised to God that he would perform, if only he could avoid the force of calumny. "Redeem me," he says, "from the calumny of men, and I will keep your commandments" (Ps. CXVII, 20). What then shall private individuals do, if a king fears calumny, and that he may be freed

makes a difficult vow? He does not request a long life of five hundred years or more, nor the dominion of the whole world, nor any other desirable or admirable thing, but defense against the calumnies of men; and if he attains this, he promises to keep the commandments of God. ^A Calumny is in truth the greatest of evils; and therefore that most prophetic and kingly mind dreaded it, and did not believe itself safe from it through the forces of its whole kingdom, having otherwise achieved countless victories. For calumny is the mother of scandals and fills the inhabited world with infinite evils: it divides brothers from one another, parents from children, these from their parents, and husbands from their beloved wives. Indeed, this is the most powerful and most ancient weapon of the devil, from which that murderer also obtained his name: for the name of a calumniator signifies nothing else but the devil. Satan does not respect anyone, however worthy of reverence he may be; he denies honor to the honorable, that bold and most insolent one. ^B Wherefore the enemy did not even spare our venerable and most holy Catholicos, whom the angels revere as one who emulates them, and who strives to imitate their ways in a body of clay: but he used against him his old weapon, namely, calumny. For I have heard the furtive whispers of certain people, claiming that the Catholicos secretly signified to the emperor that he accepts the Fourth Synod and is coming over to the Roman side, whether the Armenians follow or not. And these frauds, indeed, the dragon has woven among you against the Catholicos. Again, he cast this calumny upon us, that we were asserting throughout all Romania that he himself was a heretic. O the wickedness of Satan! Who among us would accuse the Catholicos of heresy, whom I called most holy in the written disputation ^C which was read in the palace and in the synod, from which it is possible to reach the exact opposite opinion to those who are slandering him? But the enemy of peace and concord, who always opposes good deeds, has indeed contrived these things. But we both judge and call the Catholicos holy; and he himself wrote nothing to the emperor except this: "Since your holy majesty desires the union, we also desire and long for it; and when, with God, we hold our own synod, we shall bring forward the arguments of the men of your majesty's empire in our midst; and whatever God shows us to be good, we shall do, and shall signify everything to your mighty majesty through our own archbishops." ^D These are the things that the Catholicos signified in writing. But may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, which we learn is of God, and whose God is God Himself, and which itself is God, as in the peace of our God, utterly destroy its enemies forever, but keep those who love it in its concord, in Christ Jesus our Lord and our true God.

GEN. With these things said, the Catholicos says: I believe that no one of sound mind is ignorant of the fact that the author of evil, who is the serpent, cannot bear the union of Christians:

for he is slain by the concord of the children of God, and receives a deadly sword into ^A his vitals when he sees peace flourishing. And if he has devised such things against us, wishing to hinder the union, it is no wonder; but his scandals did not escape us. Therefore, we pay no heed to what has been said against us, but we signify to you, as we once signified to the Emperor, what we intend. From now on, if you so command, farewell.

Having said farewell, we proceeded to Cessunium; and in that place we met the monk Theodore, the philosopher of the Catholicos of the Jacobites or Syrians, waiting to lead us safely to his General, who was then staying in a certain small town called Saint Balsamon. But when we learned that the emir Sachapetinus had set an ambush to capture us, we were afraid to go there; but we did send the imperial letter to the General, and he in turn sent to us, in writing and in Greek, the confession of his faith, ^B along with a letter explaining that, since we could not travel to him, he was sending the monk Theodore, who would discuss the whole matter with Theorianus in the name of the General. The confession of faith contained this, word for word.

DISPUTATION II

[Note: The intervening text is a historical summary by Assemanus regarding the correspondence between Manuel Comnenus, Patriarch Michael, and Nerses, Armenian General.]

Assemanus notes: This man was Michael the Patriarch, nicknamed "the Great," of whom Assemanus speaks in the place soon to be cited.

There exists an insigne and prolix testimony of Bar-Hebraeus in the second part of his *Chronicon*, still unpublished (for Kirschius published the first part), the Vatican codex of which you have described in the fifth volume of this collection of mine, part 1, p. 49. In the meantime, while the work still awaits the light of the press, we have the excellent excerpts of Assemanus in *Biblioth. orient.*, which it is not necessary to recite here, especially since it testifies to us regarding the second journey of Theorianus to the East for the sake of disputation, so that no one might think it forged by the Greeks, since the matter is now published from a very rare Greek codex recently observed and edited by me; which codex is indeed so ancient that it does not seem to be very far removed from the age of the disputation itself. Thus, therefore, Bar-Hebraeus [cites] Assemanus.

In the year of the Greeks 1482 [i.e., 1170 A.D.], the Emperor Manuel Comnenus wrote a letter regarding religion to Patriarch Michael through Christopher. Furthermore, he sent Theorianus to him and to Nerses, the General of the Armenians, who, when he arrived at *Castrum Romanum*, signaled to Michael that he should hasten to Syria for a colloquy, since it was not possible for them to proceed into Mesopotamia. Michael delegated John, Bishop of Chisum [who appears here in the first disputation of Theorianus], to Theorianus. Theorianus returned to Byzantium and was sent again by the Emperor to Syria in the year 1172. He again summoned Michael to *Castrum Romanum* by letter. But he sent the monk Theodore, nicknamed Bar-Vehebun, his disciple, to answer the questions of Theorianus. ^C It was debated regarding substance and nature from Aristotelian doctrine, with Theorianus, as Bar-Hebraeus fabulously claims out of love for his own sect, having been silenced by the arguments of Theodore. Hence, it is said that the General of the Armenians, who had given the upper hand to Theorianus, having resumed his strength, wrote to him thus: "When I have celebrated a synod, I will declare my sentiment to the Emperor."

Nerses also sent a letter to Patriarch Michael in these words: "The Emperor of the Greeks has proposed ten questions to us; five regarding faith, namely, that we should state two natures in Christ, two wills, two operations; that with the three synods, we should also proclaim the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, and the seventh; that finally, we should expunge that addition to the Trisagion hymn: 'Who was crucified for us'; that we should celebrate the feast of the Nativity with the other nations; that we should put leaven in the Eucharist and water in the chalice; that we should make chrism from olive oil; that we should pray in the churches; that we should perform the liturgy openly. And indeed, to reform the rites for the sake of peace would be easy for us, and to speak of two natures according to the Theologian [Gregory Nazianzen]. But that we should expunge that particle, 'Who was crucified for us,' or pronounce anathema against holy men, can in no way be done. Notwithstanding all this, whatever you do, we shall also do."

What Michael wrote back to Nerses after these things, Bar-Hebraeus does not express. It is likely, however, that the Jacobite ^D man left nothing untried to turn the Armenians, whom his predecessors had infected with Monophysite errors, away from the communion of the Church. He certainly did this with his Jacobites: for to the letter of the Emperor sent through Theorianus and another certain Greek named Caloenus, by which he was invited to the unity of the Church, he is said to have replied thus: "We are most studious for peace, and we do not flee it, provided it is done with those who do not at all change the faith of the Fathers, and who, with Athanasius and Cyril, say one nature of the Word incarnate."

This was the end of the mission of Theorianus according to Bar-Hebraeus; with which seem to agree those things which Galanus writes from the Menologium of the Armenians in his *Concil. ecclesiae Armeniae cum Latina*, vol. 1, p. 240, where he affirms that Nerses, Patriarch of the Armenians, died before he could convene a synod of the bishops of his nation, in which he had decided to propose to them the orthodox faith regarding the incarnation. ASSEMANUS.

Confession of Faith of the General of the Jacobites

^C Regarding the great mystery of the providence accomplished for our salvation—I speak of the incarnation of the Word, who revealed and showed forth His own majesty—we believe as follows: We confess that from the incomparable nature of the holy Trinity, one of the adorable hypostases, the holy Son, who is from the holy Father, by His own good pleasure and that of the Father and the Spirit, in the last times for our salvation descended from the heavens, and dwelt in the womb of the holy Virgin Mary according to the prophetic predictions concerning this great mystery, and He took upon Himself flesh, mind, and soul in—

^A in a complete man, and united them to Himself in an unconfused union; the flesh was not fashioned beforehand and then God united to it; but in a great and ineffable mystery He became a perfect man, sin alone excepted. And after a period of nine months, according to the law of human nature, He was born of the Virgin, and preserved her a virgin. For this reason, we also confess the holy Virgin Mary to be the Theotokos, and that she gave birth to the Word of God having become man. And having been reared in human growth, and having accomplished the saving economy, the Word of God Himself is the man Jesus Christ, who is of two things, divinity and humanity, ^B of two hypostases and natures, one hypostasis and one nature, one Christ.

But because some, when they hear us saying that He is one hypostasis and one nature, immediately chant against us, saying that we are to be rejected as followers of Eutyches, and like everyone who speaks of confusion in the holy union; but we confess that the difference of the natures from which Christ exists is preserved, and we no longer say that the divinity was changed to become flesh, nor that the flesh was changed into divinity, but the divinity remained divinity, and the flesh remained flesh. And if anyone should ask us here, how it is possible to know the characteristics of the natures, since Christ is called one nature, we have to show him and say that all things are possible with God, according to the testimony of the archangel Gabriel. But how the virgin conceived and gave birth and yet remained a virgin, the human mind is unable to express, ^C yet it has been done divinely. Thus also the natures are seen to be preserved in knowledge, and one is believed because of the indivisibility. And it is also believed through natural arguments; and if anyone should wish to search the testimonies of the divine Scriptures with us, we are able to show, according to the hope that is in us, from natural arguments. Just as soul and body make one man, and there are two natures, so also we speak regarding Christ the Word of God; and just as the soul is united to the body and does not lose its own nature, so also we say regarding Christ the Word of God, that neither was the divinity changed, nor the body.

Thus we confess the one Christ, one hypostasis and one nature, perfect God and perfect man, which you also know, ^D that the divine Scriptures have taught us to glorify one Lord, one Christ, even if they acknowledged Him to be of two; but they do not divide Him into two persons or into two hypostases, the Word having become an irreproachable man, as the apostle John says, that "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" (John I, 14); which long ago the same Lord also [cried out].

to Philip: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John XIV, 9). This is not to say that the apostles saw the Word without flesh, but that he was declaring the incarnate God as one and indivisible. Moreover, the shepherds, receiving the news from the angel, heard: "Unto you is born this day a Saviour" (Luke II, 11). You too confess that human nature is not the Saviour, and that the divine nature was not born into the world without flesh; it remains, therefore, that we must call him Saviour who was born of the Virgin. We believe him to be one, according to the definition of the faith published by the holy Fathers assembled in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea: Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Word, light from light, true God from true God. And you know well that the name Jesus is not confessed solely of the divine nature, but of the God incarnate, who is Jesus Christ. There are many other things in the divine Scriptures that demonstrate this; we have offered these few words to you, that you may know that we are blameless when we confess that he is one hypostasis—that is, one nature—the Christ. For we know and believe that he is from two, without confusion, without division, immutably and inconvertibly. We believe that he fulfilled the old covenant according to the prophecies of the prophets, and he was circumcised in the body, which he bore, similar to our own, subject to passion, mortal, and corruptible; although in reality he did not allow his flesh to experience corruption. In that same flesh he fasted, conquered the tempter, performed miracles and wonders, and suffered, was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day.

^B But because some imagine against us that we attribute passion to the divinity—which God forbid that we should ever say—we speak as the divine Scriptures are accustomed to speak: that God suffered and died, just as Paul also testifies, but in human flesh; just as the holy Basil of Cappadocia also says: "As iron is united to fire, yet the fire does not suffer what the iron suffers." ^C Again, as the soul in the body receives the passions of infirmities—hunger and death—yet the soul does not suffer from these things because it is a spiritual and incorruptible nature, so, along with Paul, we confess that God tasted death, without his divinity having suffered anything at all. This is sufficient for us as a great testimony (without our searching further), for he who was even caught up to the third heaven, as he relates, heard ineffable things. At the same time, we call to mind that the holy Paul speaks of a common nature ^D and a particular one; for the particular nature signifies the hypostasis. Therefore, we do not say that God was united to the human nature in a common nature. If it were not so, it would be found that the whole Holy Trinity was united to the whole of humanity; but in the particular nature

^A of the hypostasis and one person of Christ you confess. Therefore, this same hypostasis, without the Word, is a particular nature. For the rest, let your greatness know that those who hate us hate us without cause; for the mystery of the faith built upon the foundation of the Apostles is one: we confess one Christ in his conception, in his birth, in his upbringing, in his passion, and on the cross and in the burial and in the resurrection and in the ascension; and we hope for him to come in the body which he assumed, to judge the living and the dead. This definition we received from the apostolic hands, and it was confirmed by the three holy ecumenical synods.

Truly, we have also learned the law and the order of the dominical feasts: of the Nativity of Christ, of the Circumcision, of the Epiphany, ^B the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Pentecost, the Transfiguration, the Exaltation of the precious cross, the Nativity of the Theotokos, the Dormition of the Theotokos; and we celebrate the feasts of the holy apostles, and likewise of the martyrs, each in its proper time together with you. And we revere the tradition of the most mystical sacrifice of the saints, that which is made of bread and wine with water, the adorable mystery of our salvation. And everyone who confesses that Jesus is God and the Son of God, and who worships the precious cross, we recognize and accept as a Christian. Nor do we hate any of the most Christian nations, but rather we have mercy on those who hate us, and we pray for them. And we offer the holy sacrifice, which is the glory of Christ who gives us life, for all the faithful. We also keep the canons of the holy apostles, and we have the correct ordinances, ^C and order for performing the liturgy of the holy myron, and for consecrating churches according to the following and interpretation of the true disciple of the holy apostles, Dionysius. And all these things our orthodox people perform with the love of God and faith and fear, from great Antioch and all of Syria, Mesopotamia, and as far as great Persia. These and certain other things were contained in the writing of the Syrians, or Jacobites, to the Emperor.

When, therefore, we read this confession of theirs, we found nothing in it clearly that was not correct, except for this: for the General wrote, “The Word of God himself, the man Jesus Christ, who is from two, from divinity ^D and humanity, from two hypostases and natures, one hypostasis and one nature.” Theorianus says to the monk Theodore the philosopher, “Except for this, the rest seem to me correct.” Theodore replied, “Indeed, when I first found you in the synod of the General of the Armenians, I wished to discuss this matter with you, but you refused; for I would surely have demonstrated to you that every Christian is in duty bound to confess the Christian

and he who does not confess him in this way wanders far from the truth.

^A THEOR. Since you wished to argue from the books of Aristotle, and not from the teachers of the Church, I rightly did not wish to confer with you concerning the faith of Christians; for it has never been heard that one can draw perfume from mire.

THEOD. Do you not know that the luminaries of the Church harvested their knowledge from the pagan sages, and that all those among the saints who were not instructed in the disciplines of the pagans are unlearned and illiterate? Now I repeat to you what I said then: if you choose to confer with me according to the norm of the pagan sages, I am prepared to demonstrate that the dogma of the Syrians is orthodox. If not, I do not deem you worthy of a single word.

^B THEOR. If you wish to discuss any other topic with me according to the norm of the pagan sages, I do not refuse; but concerning the faith of the Christians, unless you wish to conduct the discussion according to the definitions of the theologians of the Church—the holy apostles, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Athanasius, the holy Gregories, the great Basil, and the rest—I shall not exchange a word with you at all. But if you are so confident in your philosophy, let us first define these four things—substance, nature [(38)], hypostasis, and person—according to the divine Fathers, and let us set these as the terms of our propositions; then, finally, we shall join the battle of syllogisms according to the norm of the pagan sages.

^C THEOD. It is necessary that I understand these four things which you speak of according to the opinion of those pagan sages who discovered them; and likewise that the battle of syllogisms be conducted according to them.

THEOR. If the theologians of the pagans did not differ from ours, you would act rightly in doing this; but since there is the greatest dissonance between them and ours, you ought not to act in this way. For even John Philoponus, by following the pagans, was cast out of the Church as a tritheist. And many others, too, for this very reason deviated from the faith. As the great Paul also writes to Timothy, saying: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." [(1 Tim. vi, 20)]

^D Having said these things, the monk Theodore departed. The next day, however, Elias, the bishop of Cessunium, came to Theorianus’s lodging and said to him: "I marvel why you did not wish to dispute with our philosopher, but instead became frightened; whereas in the synod of the Armenians, so many men...

you did not fear. Know, however, that in no nation at this present time does wisdom flourish as it does among the nation of the Syrians. For this reason, we do not permit any other way of disputing. And know also this, that Theodorus is my disciple, and being still a youth, he desires to dispute with you."

THEOR. Know, master, that the Romans, while in other things they are most courageous, are yet very fearful of transgressing the boundaries of the holy Fathers.

BP. But by what law is it forbidden to dispute about the faith using the wisdom of outsiders?

THEOR. The divine Gregory, in his discourse against Eunomius, says: "Away with for me Plato's ideas, and the transmigrations and cycles of our souls, and the [recollections] ^B and the unlovely loves entering the soul through lovely bodies, Epicurus's atheism and his atoms and his unphilosophical pleasure, Aristotle's parsimonious providence and his artificiality, and the mortal discourses concerning the soul, and the human reasoning of dogmas." This the Theologian says concerning those outside. But as to what our own [methods] are, and how they ought to be treated, hear from his own words in his second discourse on peace: "These things are to be said briefly and dogmatically, not contentiously; in a fisherman’s manner, not an Aristotelian one; in an ecclesiastical style, not a forensic one; usefully, not pompously." And in the discourse on the moderation to be observed in disputes, he says: "Pyrrho’s objections, or suspensions of judgment, or antitheses, and the solutions of Chrysippus’s syllogisms, or the wickedness ^C of Aristotle’s arts, or the deceptions of Plato’s eloquence, have entered our Church under an ill omen, like certain Egyptian plagues." Yet you wish to dispute using the wickedness of Aristotle’s arts, and to bring in Egyptian scourges for the ruin of the Church, despising the heralds of the faith? Nevertheless, to gratify you, if you command it, I will dispute even according to the manner of Aristotle, so that I may see what the foundations are upon which you rely.

BP. If you do this, you will win our favor; perhaps we shall even be found to be of one mind. I promise you that we shall dispute neither sophistically nor contentiously.

THEOR. You speak well. Answer me then: do you say Christ is one substance, or two?

BP. One and indivisible.

THEOR. Does Aristotle say that the one and indivisible, with regard to number, can receive contraries at the same time, or not? ^D I mean, for example: is this fire hot and cold at the same time? Or is the same thing created and uncreated, and things similar to these, or not?

BP. By no means.

THEOR. Since, therefore, Christ receives two contraries at once—for He is created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, with a beginning and without a beginning, visible and invisible—He shall not be one substance. And this is clear from the converse argument. For if one substance, [being] indivisible, does not receive contraries at the same time, but on the contrary, things which are divisible are receptive of contraries according to the Stagirite, then that which receives contraries at the same

time is not one substance. Christ, therefore, is two substances, even if Christ is one: according to the one he is created, and according to the other he is uncreated; similarly mortal and immortal, with a beginning and without beginning, and so on for the rest.

These things ^A having been said, the bishop asked Theorianus what he judged regarding the Armenians? He replied: I have found the Armenians to be quite well-versed in the divine Scriptures, and rivals of the great saints in fasting and the zeal for prayer; but they are clearly unskilled at disputation; for they seem to me to be devoid of rhetorical art and dialectic and the other disciplines. Wherefore, since they deceive themselves, they do not understand that they are hallucinatory. For they say that nature is indeed a universal and common thing, but that a person is a partial thing, insofar as it is indivisible, just as the holy men have also defined these terms. ^B Then they confess Christ to be one person, as a partial thing. And up to this point they speak correctly. Then they say that Christ has one nature, which they had already confessed to be a universal thing; and they do not understand that since Christ is a partial thing, insofar as he is a person, he cannot have one nature; for otherwise the partial would be universal, and the individual would be a species, which is absolutely impossible. For even if we say that higher things are predicated of lower things, yet this holds true only in the philosophical vocabulary, which is also called physical, but not in the artificial vocabulary, which the professors of these disciplines also call logical: artificial, of course, as a product of art, not of nature; logical, because it pertains to the logical discipline, which is the instrument of philosophy, not philosophy itself. For in the philosophical vocabulary, universals are predicated of partials; ^C that is, the lower things receive both the name and the definition of the higher things; for example, Peter is a man, man is an animal, therefore Peter is both a man and an animal. Similarly, Peter also receives the definition of man and animal: for Peter is a rational and mortal animal, and a living, sentient substance. See how, in the philosophical vocabulary, the lower things receive even the name and definition of the higher things. However, in the logical vocabulary this does not happen. For that which is indivisible is not called a species, nor a genus, ^D nor is it plural, nor does it differ in number, nor similarly in species, when it is predicated as to what it is. Thus it happens also with Christ: for we call him a person and a hypostasis, but not, however, a nature; for he does not receive the name or the definition of nature; for Christ is not the principle of motion and rest, which is the definition of nature. For person, hypostasis, indivisibility, species, genus and the like do not belong to the philosophical or physical vocabularies, but to the logical or artificial ones; moreover, the universality of a common term is not predicated of partials. Therefore, the Armenians, unaware of the difference of the philosophical vocabulary from the logical, ignorantly mingle things that conflict, because they understand neither what they say nor what they affirm.

^A

EPISC. What is your opinion concerning the Armenians? Will they be united with you, or not?

THEOR. As far as the will of the General is concerned, union will certainly take place.

EPISC. This is difficult for the Armenians; for many things keep them apart. Nevertheless, we have heard from many that they are now concurring with you in all things. But we Syrians, by the grace of God, are in all things in accord with you Romans, with one exception, namely, that we do not say that Christ is two substances, lest some addition be made to the Trinity, and we be found worshipping a quaternity and not a Trinity. For we have been taught by the Fathers to believe and confess a Monad and a Trinity, but not a Monad and a quaternity. And for this reason we say that the body is consubstantial with the Word, so that we do not attach anything of a different substance to the Trinity. ^B

THEOR. Your Holiness previously said that in no nation does wisdom now dwell as it does in the nation of the Syrians. But now I hear that you do not call Christ two substances for this reason, lest the Trinity become a quaternity. Therefore, desiring to escape this, you say that the Word is consubstantial with the body; and it is the same thing to say the body is consubstantial with the Word.

EPISC. You speak rightly; that is how we speak.

THEOR. And yet, if the body is called consubstantial with the Word, you then rather make the Trinity a quaternity, and you fall into the very pit you are striving to escape. You do the same thing as those who drink hemlock so as not to die. And this is very easy for you to understand, if you are willing. The term "consubstantial" is not predicated of one person; for something is not said to be consubstantial with itself, but always in relation to another person, for it is among the things that are relative. As, for example, what is consubstantial is said to be consubstantial with that which is consubstantial. Therefore, the Word is said to be consubstantial with the Father. The Father is, of course, one person, and the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father, is another person. If, then, we grant, according to your opinion, that the body is also consubstantial with the Word, the body is also found to be a person other than the Son. For just as the Son, being consubstantial with the Father, is a different person from the Father, so the body, if it is consubstantial with the Word, is a different person from the Son; and the Son is found to have two persons, as Nestorius used to say. But we also have the Spirit, who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son; and behold, the Trinity is clearly a quaternity according to you! For the Trinity is one of persons, not of substances. ^C And from this, the body is found to be consubstantial not only with the Word, but also with the Father and with the Spirit. For if the Word is consubstantial with the Father, according to the confession of the Fathers, it is likewise so with the Spirit, as is obvious to all. But if the body is, according to you, consubstantial with the Son, then the body is necessarily consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. And thus four things are found to be consubstantial with one another. And in fleeing from the quaternity, O philosophers, you have fallen into it, as the great Athanasius says in his letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth: “Saying these things in this way, they do not understand how they conflict with themselves.” I marvel how, being occupied with philosophy, as you say, ^D you are yourselves unknowingly deceived. Last year the bishop of Cussinius before you, John...

entered the synod of the Armenians in my absence and, with a most foolish utterance, disturbed the entire assembly. A few days later, he was present once more while I was at the synod; but since he did not wish to engage with me, as one who was, so to speak, happening upon a foreign synod, I addressed my words to the Catholicos of the Armenians—yet, directing the meaning of my discourse toward the aforementioned bishop, I said: “My lord, the question which was written down before, down to the words: ‘Without my patriarch.’” ^A But to him I spoke then by way of example, as to one unversed in philosophy; to you, however, as a philosopher, I have offered a logical demonstration. To him I argued that the Trinity does not become a quaternity because of the addition of another nature; but to you I showed that the Trinity becomes a quaternity all the more when we say that the body is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word.

Upon these things being said, Bishop Elias replied: “We say that Christ is one composite substance, as the holy Fathers teach. For the rest, I did not come here to dispute, but I have moved this discourse in a brotherly manner, wishing to learn from you what the Romans say about this matter. But the philosopher Theodore, who was sent to you by our patriarch, let him say what seems good to him.”

^B THEOR. You have said, my lord, that you affirm one composite substance. But I pray you, do not deem it a burden to explain to me what it is that Gregory the Theologian says in his discourse on the Holy Spirit: “If it is a substance, and not something belonging to the accidents of substance, it fully remains that it is either a creature or God. For a middle ground between these, whether participating in neither or composed of both, not even those who fashion centaurs for themselves would conceive.” Why, then, do you call Christ a composite substance, when the Theologian is altogether ignorant of a composite substance?

EPISC. I have said already that I did not come here to dispute. I claim, however, that the discrepancy between us and you is not great. ^C When these things were said, a certain Syrian priest stood up and said to Theorianus: “Why do you seal yourselves with two fingers? Are the fingers not divided one by one? So that the two natures of Christ are believed to be separate among you.” And Theorianus, as if in jest, replied: “We do not do this to signify the two natures of Christ, but because, having been freed from the tyranny of the devil, we have been taught to arrange a battle line against him and to wage war: by our hands, indeed, we perform righteousness and almsgiving and other virtues, which is, as it were, an arrayed battle line; ^D but when with our fingers we make the sign of Christ

which is the battle array; and by stretching out our fingers upon our foreheads, we lay the seal of Christ upon ourselves, ^A we join battle, and in this way we overcome Him, and together with David we praise the Lord, saying, "Blessed be the Lord my God, who teaches my hands to prepare the battle array, my fingers for war." Not the finger, he says, but the fingers.

After this, Theodorus says: I hope in God that the scandal of the "one nature" will be removed from our midst, and we shall receive the fourth synod and Pope Leo ^B, provided the Romans do not force us to anathematize Severus, because nowhere in his writings does Severus say that Christ is of one nature or substance, but one hypostasis and one person. Moreover, since we have the entire ecclesiastical office, hymns, and chants regarding all the saints from him, it would be very grievous for us to anathematize him whom we have as a master. I say this, however: as soon as the Catholicos of the Armenians sends an embassy ^C to the imperial city so that the articles of faith may be confirmed synodically, then our own General will also send legates, so that what seems good to God may be fulfilled.

We strongly urge you not to entertain contentions; for we have no such custom, nor does the Church of God; but pursue peace with all, having the peace of Christ, who makes both one. And love the Latins, who are your brothers in Christ; for they are orthodox, and sons of the catholic and apostolic Church, just as we are. ^D For these present questions, if such there be, in no way touch upon the faith; for all things are good if we do them for the glory of God. For neither in the ecclesiastical custom of the Latins, nor in our own, has anything taken hold that departs from what is good or seemly; but rather they have a more divine aim and intention. Therefore, to the wise, all things are upright, but to those who are not so, they are a scandal and an offense.

THE EPISTLE OF THEORIANUS THE PHILOSOPHER ON THE FASTING OF THE SABBATH

See Patrologia, volume XCIV, column 405, in Fr. Michael Lequien's Sixth Damascene Dissertation.