Nicetas Choniates

NICETAS CHONIATA FROM BOOK VI OF THE TREASURY OF ORTHODOX FAITH

On Macedonius.

1. ^A Since I am about to begin my discourse regarding the spirit-fighter Macedonius, I think it is necessary to set forth these matters first, as they are worthy of being known by those who study history, and are not at all disconnected from what is to be said. For Eusebius of Nicomedia, who has often appeared in previous accounts, being in every way opposed to the orthodox, first conspired—as we have said—against Eustathius of Antioch, and he deposed him on the basis of calumnies. After Alexander of Alexandria departed to God five months after the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius succeeded to the primacy. Eusebius’s faction, therefore, attempted through letters ^B to persuade him to receive Arius into communion; but when he would not yield to their entreaties, they devised the following. Meletius, the bishop of Lycopolis—whom the Nicene Synod had condemned—upon leaving this life, appointed one John, from among his own associates, as bishop in his place, contrary to the decree of those at Nicaea. The faction of Eusebius, therefore, having approached those who held John’s views, persuaded them to accuse Athanasius; and they did accuse him, claiming that he had not been ordained according to the canons, that he had imposed a tax of linen tunics upon the Egyptians, that he had corrupted a woman, and that while conspiring against the sovereign, he had sent a chest filled with gold to a certain Philumenus, one of the imperial servants, and that he had prevented the shipment of grain from Egypt, and that he had cut off the hand of a certain Arsenius for the sake of magic.

2. Because of these things, therefore, the emperor commanded a synod to be assembled at Caesarea in Palestine. ^C But Athanasius being inclined to delay, because Eusebius of Caesarea (the son of Pamphilus), the bishop of that city, was a friend and collaborator of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Meletians for their part accused him again of having shattered a mystical cup in Mareotis, of having overturned the episcopal throne, and of having committed certain other prohibited acts. Therefore the emperor permitted a synod to take place in Tyre, and when it had gathered, Athanasius gained a most outstanding victory; but the bishops—the enemies of the truth—condemned him all the more; and then they sent a delegation to Mareotis, a certain region of Alexandria that took its name from Lake Mareia. Those who were sent were Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodorus of Perinthus (or Heraclea), Narcissus of Neronias, Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, [and] Macedonius of Mopsuestia; who, after they had

^B sought into the matters of the breaking of the sacred cup and the deposition from the episcopal see, passed over the true things, but themselves imagined false ones, and deposed, as they thought, Athanasius, receiving also that Arsenius, whose hand they said had been cut off; he, who was formerly a bishop of the Meletian superstition, at that time subscribed against Athanasius among them as bishop of the city of the Hypseletians.

3. In the meantime, the temple in Jerusalem around the place of the Skull, which is called the great Martyrium, having been finished, the emperor ordered the bishops who were at Tyre to go to Jerusalem and to consecrate that temple. Then, however, the favorers of the Arians, finding an opportunity, attempted to bring about a synod at Jerusalem, and for communion to be granted to Arius and Euzoius. Having therefore persuaded the emperor through his own sister Constantia and a certain Arian presbyter intimate with this woman, they saw to it that he should see Arius and Euzoius, whom, after he had seen them and supposed that they believed similarly to the Nicene Fathers, he sent to the bishops gathered at Jerusalem, writing that a favorable opinion should be held regarding them, if they seemed to believe rightly. The Arians, therefore, seizing the opportunity, received them, and wrote to the emperor and to all the bishops everywhere that they were orthodox.

4. These things being thus done, ^C Athanasius fled from Tyre and came to Constantinople; whose petition the emperor hearing, as he said he had not been justly condemned, wrote to those then gathered at Tyre to go down to him, so that the cause of Athanasius might be examined before his own eyes. When, therefore, they had arrived, Eusebius of Nicomedia contended that the sentence passed upon Athanasius was just; he brought forward as witnesses Theognis, Maris, Theodorus, Valens, and Ursacius. The emperor, either believing the things that were said to be true, or suspecting that the bishops would agree together in order that Athanasius might be removed from their midst, ordered him to be taken to Trier, which is a city of the western Gauls; and Athanasius was taken away and remained there until the death of Constantine.

5. But Arius, after the synod at Jerusalem, came into Egypt; ^D and since the Church of the Alexandrians did not communicate with him, he returned again to Constantinople; and thus were the prayers of the holy Alexander fulfilled. After these things, however, the Eusebians began to innovate openly regarding the exposition of those who had gathered at Nicaea, and to reject in writing the consubstantial. They saw to it, therefore, that a synod should gather at Constantinople, and they deposed and busied themselves that the heralds of the consubstantial should be sent into exile: Asclepas the bishop of Gaza, Climatius of Antaradus, another Climatius of Paltus, Ephration of Balanae, Cyrus of Beroea, Domnus of Sirmium, Ellanius of Tripoli, Arius of the Petrae of Palaestina, and Asterius of the Petrae of Arabia, Olympius of Aenus, Theodulus of Trajanopolis, Vincentius of Capua, Ephrata of Agrippina, Eutropius of Adrianople, to whom succeeded Lucius,

and above all, they deposed the aforementioned Marcellus of Ancyra; for they were excessively enraged at him, as he had neither agreed with those things defined by them against Athanasius in the synod held in Phoenicia, nor those at Jerusalem concerning Arius, nor had he participated in the consecration of the great martyrion, due to his detestation of communion with them. And these things, indeed, were done while Constantine the Great was still alive. ^A

5. Upon his death, and the empire of the East falling to Constantius, the affairs of the Arians gained more momentum; for that presbyter who was of Arian mind, whom the sister of Constantine had commended to Constantine, was also dear to Constantius, as the one who had delivered to him the testament of Constantine. From that time on, having become familiar with the empress and the most powerful eunuchs of the royal bedchamber, over whom presided Eusebius, a supporter of Arius, he greatly stirred up the Arians. In the meantime, Athanasius returned to Alexandria from the Gauls, Constantine—the son of Constantine the Great, who ruled over the Gauls in the West—having permitted his return and written letters to the Alexandrians. ^B

7. At this time, Eusebius Pamphili having departed this life, Acacius succeeded to the bishopric in Caesarea of Palestine. Not long after, the Emperor Constantine, having waged war against his own brother Constans, was killed by his commanders at Aquileia. At that time also, Alexander of Constantinople having died, Macedonius was chosen by the Arians, and Paul by the orthodox, against the wishes of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, to whom, as neighbors, the ordination pertained. Constantius, being angered at these things, came to Byzantium (for he was away at the time), and having convened a synod, he handed over the throne of Constantinople to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who on this occasion received his second transfer. During this time, ninety-seven bishops gathered at Antioch the Great; they gathered to consecrate the newly built church which Constantine had begun to build and Constantius had finished; but in reality, as the event proved, they gathered in order to change the doctrines of Nicaea. ^C

8. The leaders of this synod were: Eusebius of Constantinople, who had been transferred from Nicomedia; Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine; Patrophilus of Scythopolis; Theodore of Perinthus; Eudoxius of Germanicia; Diausius of Caesarea in Cappadocia; and George of Laodicea in Syria. But Maximus, who had become bishop of Jerusalem after Macarius, had intentionally avoided this synod, repenting that he—having been deceived—had cast his vote alongside those who had deposed Athanasius at Tyre. By these men, therefore, who had assembled at Antioch, and who—besides the perversion of the dogma—had condemned Athanasius, Eusebius was chosen as bishop of Alexandria, [a man] from Edessa,

the city of the Osroenians, but later becoming bishop of Emesa, who was also accused of practicing the so-called "effective" part of astronomy. But because Eusebius declined Alexandria, Gregory of the Tarbastheni (Tarbathbeni) was substituted. The Alexandrians, indignant at this, set fire to the church named after Dionysius, who had been bishop of this city; and Athanasius, fleeing, arrived in Rome.

9. Not long after, upon the death of Eusebius, Paul and Macedonius again laid claim to [the see of] Constantinople. When Constantius learned of this in Antioch, he ordered Hermogenes, the general of the army who was being sent to the Thracian regions, to make it a secondary task of his journey to drive Paul out of the church. When he had arrived there and attempted to use a military hand, ^B the populace rose up, and seizing him, killed him. When Constantius was informed of what had occurred, he reached Constantinople and cast out Paul, but he punished the city by depriving it of the grain supply which his father used to provide, [reducing it] by more than forty thousand measures; for previously, eighty thousand measures of grain were granted to the citizens each year from the taxes imposed upon the Egyptian people. However, he did not immediately make Macedonius bishop of the city, but allowed him to assemble in the aforementioned church in which Paul had been ordained; and thus he himself returned to Antioch, while Paul reached Rome.

10. But Theodoret narrates what happened at Alexandria differently. For he says that after the flight of Athanasius, Gregory held the episcopate until the synod held at Sardica; but after this synod, Gregory ^C was deposed by the Alexandrians, and Athanasius then returned to his own throne by the letters of Constans, who was then reigning in Rome. But after Constans died, Athanasius fled again, and George the Cappadocian was put forward by the Arians, and he contrived countless evils against the supporters of Athanasius, and sent into exile some of the bishops of Egypt and Libya: Gaius of Parætonium, Agathius of Phragonis and part of the Elearchia of Egypt, Ammonius of Pachnemunis and [the rest] of the remainder of the Elearchia, Agathodaemon of Schedia and Menelais, Dracontius of Hermopolis Minor, Adelphius of Onuphis, Paphnutius of Sais, of whom the great Athanasius also makes mention in his Apology concerning his own flight; and besides these, another Ammonius, Moïus, Philo, Hermes, Plinius, Psenesiris, Agamphus, Marcus, Nilammon, another Marcus, Athenodorus, and the presbyters Hierax and Dioscorus. Thus, then [narrates] Theodoret. ^D But Socrates and Sozomen say that immediately after Paul was cast out and Constantius had returned to Antioch, the Arianizers removed Gregory from Alexandria, as being neither pleasing to the Alexandrians nor diligent in the defense of their own dogma; and in his place they sent George, who originated from Cappadocia and had acquired a reputation for the Arian superstition.

^A 11. In the meantime, however, Athanasius and Paul, as we have said, arrived in Rome, as did Marcellus of Ancyra and Asclepas of Gaza, whom the Arians had deposed, falsely accusing him of having overturned the altar, and in whose place they had ordained Centianus; and in addition to them, Lucius of Adrianople, who had been accused of another crime. Julius, the bishop of Rome, finding these men to be in agreement with the faith of the Nicene Council, admitted them to his communion and wrote to all the bishops of the East, that they should restore to them their own sees and send, on an appointed day, those who could prove that they had been justly deposed. Relying upon these letters, the supporters of Athanasius each recovered their own sees. Those, however, who received these letters took it ill; and gathering at Antioch, they replied to Julius that it was not right for the bishops of the East to be ruled by him, if he wished to expel any from their churches; for neither had the bishops of the East resisted when the bishops of the West expelled Novatus. Moreover, they stirred up Constantius against Athanasius and Paul; and he wrote from Antioch to Philip, the prefect of Constantinople, to expel Paul from the city and to hand over the church to Macedonius. Paul was therefore immediately expelled. Philip, meanwhile, proceeded to the church, having Macedonius seated with him on his chariot; and they were followed by a military guard armed with swords. But when a huge multitude was present and would ^B not make way for the prefect and Macedonius, the soldiers believed that the crowd intended to resist; and they killed many with their swords, while many others were trampled by one another. There died, as it is said, about three thousand one hundred and fifty. By such success, therefore, Macedonius was installed in the episcopal seat by the prefect.

12. Athanasius, fearful of the plot of Constantius—for he had threatened him with death—went to Rome. And Paul, having been taken to Thessalonica, whence his ancestors were said to have originated, since he had received permission to leave the East, and was not prohibited from going to Illyricum and the region beyond it, pretended to set out for Corinth, and he too came to Rome. When, therefore, Julius had warned the Emperor Constans concerning their situation, he wrote to the Emperor Constantius to send bishops who might defend their deposition. There were sent, therefore, Narcissus of Irenopolis, Theodore of Heraclea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Marcus of Arethusa; they, in fact, concealed the faith set forth by them at Antioch and constructed another that was entirely repugnant to that of Nicaea. ^C And after they had delivered this to the Emperor Constans and had accomplished nothing of what they wished, they returned having achieved nothing. After three years, however, the bishops of the East composed another faith, which they termed the

long exposition

^A Likewise they [excommunicated] the Sabellians, whom the Romans call Patropassians, as confusing the Father with the Son and the Spirit, and calling him sometimes Father, sometimes Son, and sometimes Spirit; for the Roman language uses the term *passim* (which means "everywhere") for what is done indiscriminately and without distinction. Since the Westerners did not accept this faith, but said that the Nicene dogmas were sufficient for them, Constans wrote to his brother, as it seemed just to him that the sees should be restored to the supporters of Athanasius.

13. But since nothing further was being achieved, it pleased the two emperors to summon a council at the city of Sardica. And there gathered, according to Theodoret, two hundred and fifty bishops; but according to Socrates and Sozomen, from the Western regions about three hundred, and from the East seventy-six; in whose number were Sabinus, bishop of the Macedonians in Heraclea of Thrace, and Ischyras, who had received the bishopric of Mareotes from those who were hostile to Athanasius. The Westerners indeed gathered at Sardica itself; but the Easterners, having reached Philippopolis, made it known to them that they were unwilling to enter into discussions with them, unless they expelled the supporters of Athanasius from the assembly and from communion as being deposed. When they did not bear this, they held a council in the city of Philippopolis itself, and deposed, as they pleased, Julius of Rome, because he had been the first to communicate with Athanasius and his supporters; Hosius of Corduba for the same reason, and because he had been a friend to Paulinus and Eustathius who had ruled Antioch; Maximinus of Trier, as being the first to communicate with Paul; Protogenes of Sardica, because he defended Marcellus whom he had previously condemned; and Gaudentius, as acting differently than Cyriacus whom he had succeeded, and as holding in high regard those whom they had deposed.

14. But those around Hosius, having gathered, declared Athanasius innocent as one who had been unjustly harassed by those who had met at Tyre, and Marcellus as in no way assenting to the thoughts of which he was falsely accused. For the evil arts of the Eusebians were manifest, says Theodoret; for the things which Marcellus had spoken as questions, these they slandered as if they had been put forth by him as settled. But when these things were read at the synod held at Sardica, the faith of this man was found to be orthodox. Socrates ^D says that Marcellus, in order to repel his condemnation, persuaded the bishops gathered at Sardica that those who had deposed him did not understand what he had written, and that for this reason he had incurred the suspicions of the Samosatene bishop. But Patriarch Photius, comparing the narratives of Socrates and Theodoret, says that the bishops at Sardica were truly deceived; and because they had not well understood the writings of Marcellus, they falsely acquitted him; whence no one accepted their judgment concerning him; but Marcellus remains outside the Church.

^A The bishops at Sardica also declared Asclepas of Gaza innocent, as he brought forward testimonies from Eusebius of Pamphilus and many others that defended him; they did the same for Lucius of Adrianople, whose accusers had fled. They deposed George of Alexandria, Basil of Ancyra, the adversary of Marcellus, Centianus of Gaza who pressed the case against Asclepas, Theodore of Heraclea, Narcissus of Irenopolis, Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, Menophantus of Ephesus, Ursacius of Singidunum, Valens of Mursa, and George of Laodicea, although he was not present at that synod; and he, according to the great Athanasius, had already been deposed from the priesthood by the blessed Alexander for debauchery. And these matters were handled in this fashion.

15. The supporters of Athanasius again occupied Rome; and Constans, the emperor of the West, having learned what had happened at Sardica, wrote to the emperor Constantius to restore their own churches to the supporters of Athanasius. When he delayed, he wrote to him again, either to restore them or to prepare for war. Constantius, therefore, having communicated this to the bishops in the East, and thinking it foolish to engage in a civil war for this reason, called back by three letters Athanasius and those with him. Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, and Lucius of Adrianople therefore recovered their own sees. ^B But when Athanasius arrived in Antioch in Syria, where Constantius was staying, he proved him to be well-disposed; yet, at the instigation of the Arians, Constantius said to him: "I deem it fair that out of the many churches that are under you, one should be granted in Alexandria to those who refuse to communicate with you." But he, answering, said: "I myself ask for a similar favor, O Emperor, that those who flee the communion of the heterodox may have one church in Antioch." Upon hearing this from the Emperor, the Arians sought nothing else. Athanasius, departing thence, reached Jerusalem; its bishop, Maximus, having convened a local synod, communicated with him; and thus, when Athanasius returned to Alexandria, he deposed all those who professed the dogmas of Arius.

16. In the meantime, Constans, who was reigning in the West, was slain through the machinations of Magnentius, and Constantius became emperor of the entire realm; ^C he, being persuaded by the Arians, reversed everything that had been decreed before to the contrary. Paul of Constantinople, therefore, having been exiled to Cucusus in Armenia, was put to death by strangulation, and Macedonius again held the church. When Marcellus was cast out, Basil again became master of the bishopric; Lucius perished in prison in chains of iron; and Athanasius, whom he had ordered to be killed, barely escaped. Constantius, having set out for Illyria against Vetranio, who was attempting to seize the throne, came to Sirmium, where there was held ^D against Photinus

^A a synod. Meanwhile, the one who had played the tyrant in Rome, Magnentius, was killed by his own generals, as was another tyrant named Silvanus; therefore, with great security, Constantius set out for ancient Rome and commanded that a synod be held at Mediolanum [Milan].

17. Meanwhile, as Sozomenos narrates, when Narcissus of Irenopolis, Theodore of Heraclea, and Eugenius, who had succeeded Theognis in Nicaea, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Menophantus of Ephesus, and about thirty others had gathered in Antioch, they wrote to the bishops everywhere against Athanasius. But to Mediolanum, few came from the East, the others, as is likely, pleading old age or sickness or the difficulty of the journey; but from the West more than three hundred were gathered. Since, therefore, the Easterners deemed it proper that a common decree be issued against Athanasius, some of the Westerners, who were also sent into exile, resisted, such as Liberius of Rome, Paulinus of Trier in Gaul, Dionysius of Alba in Italy, Eusebius of Vercelli in Liguria, Lucifer of Caralis in Sardinia, and Hilary of Poitiers in the second Aquitania.

18. ^B But this synod dissolving without effect, Eudoxius of Germanicia, having learned that Leontius of Antioch in Syria had died, requested of the emperor that he be allowed to return from Rome to Germanicia, as that city was in need of him; having obtained this permission, he seized Antioch and, by the support of the Arians, and especially of the imperial eunuchs, secured for himself the bishopric of that city. And thereafter he revived the doctrine of Aetius, teaching that the Son is unlike the Father, together with the supporters of Acacius of Caesarea and Uranius of Tyre. George of Laodicea, however, gave warning about this innovation of Eudoxius to Basil of Ancyra, Macedonius of Mopsuestia, and Necropoeus of Nicomedia; these men, together with Eustathius of Sebaste and Eleusius of Cyzicus, made known to the emperor what had happened, ^C requesting that that faith prevail which says the Son is not consubstantial, but similar to the Father in essence, or else [explicitly] unlike; and that those who say He is consubstantial be deposed. The emperor, assenting to these requests, which he also found to be approved by other bishops, such as Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Singidunum, Germanius of Sirmium, Auxentius of Mediolanum, and Demophilus of Berrhoe in Thrace, decreed that a synod be celebrated in Nicaea. But because those who surrounded the emperor objected, on the grounds that questions concerning doctrine had once previously been debated in that city, it was decided that it should take place at Nicomedia; but since an earthquake had devastated ^D that city, it was again decreed that the synod be held at Nicaea. The emperor, however, changed his mind and wished it to be gathered at Seleucia in Isauria.

19. But those around Eudoxius, considering that with all the bishops gathered together they would not be able to persuade them to accept the "unlike," they...

contrived, with the eunuchs acting in concert with them, for two synods to be held: the one of the Western bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and that of the Eastern bishops at Seleucia in Isauria. And that I may cut short many words, to Paul of blessed memory, who had received the crown of confession, there succeeded Macedonius—like, one might say, darkness succeeding the day. ^A He was at first agreeing with those around Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine, and he did not say that the Son was "of like substance" (homoiousion) to the Father, but only "like" (homoion). But, after he had been deposed by them—those who were moved to anger against him by the Emperor Constantius, because he had moved the corpse of his father Constantine the Great and had been the cause of the recent slaughters (of which we have spoken before)—he resided for some time in a place near the Gates of Bithynia, ^B where he also died. He had, however, inclined toward those who constituted the other party, that is, the Semi-Arians—I mean those around George of Laodicea and Basil of Ancyra—and taught that the Son, according to them, was "of like substance" to the Father.

20. The heresiarch, desiring to be proclaimed and having devised something novel, raved more violently against the Holy Spirit. For the others—those who introduced the "of like substance," those who babbled about "like" without substance, and simply all those from the Arian party—although they said that the Son was a creature and less than the Father, they still counted Him within the Holy Trinity; but this accursed man declined to include Him in the theology of the Trinity, ^C saying that He was bereft of such honors, calling Him a minister and a servant, and using such names as would not be applied even to angels. Whence both he and his faction were called "Spirit-fighters" (Pneumatomachi) by the orthodox. This heresy was increased most especially by Marathonius of Nicomedia, from whom the Macedonians were called by some "Marathonians," and by Eleusius of Cyzicus. When Julian reigned, the Spirit-fighters, having gained security from the death of Constantius—amongst whom were Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, Eustathius of Sebaste, Eleusius of Cyzicus, Pausinicus of Zela, Leontius of Comana, Callistratus of Calliopolis, Theophilus of Castabala, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and those of their borders—were separated into their own system ^D and clearly began to be called Macedonians, and having held certain synods, they excommunicated those around Acacius.

21. When Jovian had embarked upon the imperial office, they gave him a book of petition, requesting that those who taught the "unlike" dogmas be expelled from the churches, and that they themselves be introduced as those who proclaimed the "consubstantial" (homoousion). The emperor, however, sent them away without an answer, saying only this: that he loathed contentiousness, but loved those who hastened toward concord. At that time, the contentious character of those around Acacius was exposed, and how they were always leaning toward those in power. For having gathered in An-

Antioch of Syria, they entered into conversation with Meletius, who taught the consubstantial. And this is what they did, since they saw that he was honored by the emperor who was staying there at that time. Therefore, by common consent, they gathered a council of twenty-seven bishops, composed a document, confessed the consubstantial, and confirming the faith at Nicaea, they gave this to the emperor. Those in charge of this council ^A were Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Acacius of Caesarea, Pelagius of Laodicea in Syria, and Athanasius of Ancyra.

22. When Valentinian and Valens began to rule, all the Macedonians deputed for themselves as a legate to Valentinian, Hypatius, the bishop of Perinthus, asking that it be permitted to them to assemble for the correction of doctrine. But Valentinian replied: "It is not permitted for me, placed in the order of the people, to agitate such things; but let the priests, to whom care for these affairs pertains, assemble by themselves wherever they wish." Immediately, therefore, they came together at Lampsacus, and having held deliberation for two months, they decreed that the things done by them at Antioch were void, and that it was better to hold that the Son is similar in substance to the Father. ^B Having defined these things, they encountered Valens as he was returning from Thrace (for he had traveled some part of the journey with his brother as he set out for Rome). He, however, urged them not to dissent from Eudoxius. He was the one who had succeeded Macedonius and was in agreement with Eunomius and his supporters. But when they refused, he ordered them to go into exile. Afterward, he brought back Eleusius and forced him to agree with Eudoxius in faith. In the beginning, he resisted; but then, fearing exile and expulsion, he did what he was ordered; but immediately he repented. For returning to Cyzicus, he confessed his sin in the church, and urged his own people to choose another bishop for themselves, because he himself had denied his own doctrine under compulsion of necessity. The Cyzicenes, however, overcome by their love for him, did not accept his heresy, but remained under his governance; hearing this, Eudoxius proposed Eunomius for the bishopric of Cyzicus.

23. There were being driven out by Eudoxius, the bishop of Constantinople, and the emperor Valens, not only those who professed the consubstantial Son, ^C but by now even the Macedonians themselves; who, not bearing the injury, determined to flee to the emperor’s brother and to Liberius, the bishop of Rome, preferring to embrace their faith rather than to communicate with those around Eudoxius. Therefore, they send Eustathius of Sebastia, and Silvanus of Tarsus, and Theophilus of Castabala in Cilicia; who, having arrived before Liberius, condemn Arius and those who similarly thought and taught like him; they reject every heresy contrary to the faith of the council of Nicaea; and they receive the consubstantial alone, in the sense that this word signifies "similar in substance." ^D Having received this written confession of theirs, Liberius dealt with their cause; and having accepted letters from him, they sailed to Sicily.

A synod was convened there, and as the bishops of that region decreed the same things, they returned.

24. At that time, while Eusebius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Athanasius of Ancyra, Pelagius of Laodicea in Syria, Zeno of Tyre, Paul of Emesa, Otrius of Melitene, Gregory of Nazianzus, and many others—who had also decreed at Antioch that the Son is consubstantial, in the reign of Jovian—were holding a synod, the letters of Liberius and those of the West were read. Rejoicing at these, they wrote to all the churches throughout Asia that they should agree with these letters and, while it was still spring, gather at Tarsus. But just as the bishops were on the verge of holding the synod at Tarsus, thirty-four Asian bishops, ^B having gathered at Antioch in Caria, praised the zeal for the concord of the churches, but rejected the term "consubstantial." However, the Emperor Valens, through the machinations of Eudoxius, dissolved the synod which was to take place in Cilicia. But the Macedonians, for some time, communicated indifferently with others in the churches of each city, mingling with one another and with those who from the beginning had professed the consubstantial.

25. After the death of Valens, Gratian issued a law allowing everyone to worship God as they wished and to assemble, except for the Manichaeans and those who held the views of Photinus and Eunomius; once again, many taught that the term "consubstantial" should be extirpated. However, the Emperor Theodosius the Great, being a supporter of the consubstantial, convened a synod of bishops like-minded with himself for the sake of confirming what had been decreed at Nicaea. Thinking it possible to join the so-called Macedonians to the Catholic Church, he also summoned them. There gathered, therefore, at Constantinople, of those who confessed the consubstantial Trinity, about one hundred and fifty, ^C among whom were Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius, and others of the most famous Fathers of that time, who all requested the Macedonians to acknowledge the consubstantial, reminding them of the embassy and the confession which they had tendered to Liberius of Rome through Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus. They, however, saying that they had never openly taught that the Son is consubstantial with the Father—even though they had stated the contrary in their confession to Liberius—were dismissed. The others of the other party remained, and after they decreed that the Holy Spirit is Lord and Giver of Life, and that He proceeds from the Father and is co-worshipped and co-glorified with the Father, as is also contained in the divine symbol, and struck Macedonius with an anathema—as also those who taught that on the subject of the Son [the term] "consubstantial" or "similar" [should be used]—they established this second pious synod after the one at Nicaea, and also set forth ^D canons concerning

^A various ecclesiastical questions, they deliberated as to whom they should entrust the bishopric of Constantinople. Now, the emperor, holding Gregory the Theologian in admiration, judged him worthy of this bishopric; and the majority of the synod agreed. But he himself, perceiving that some were opposing him, especially those from Egypt, after some time declined. Therefore, with Diodorus as witness, Nectarius of Tarsus, being as yet uninitiated, is elected, and he is baptized, and—while still clothed in the baptismal robe—is ordained bishop of Constantinople.

26. After these things, Nectarius and the others, having come together, confirmed the faith of Nicaea, and anathematized every heresy, and decreed that churches everywhere should be administered according to the ancient canons, and that bishops should remain in their own churches and not proceed to foreign ones, nor, without being invited, obtrude themselves into foreign ordinations, as happened previously—which often occurred, to the disadvantage of the Catholic Church. And as for the matters that happen within each nation, the synod of the nation should administer them as would seem best. After the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Constantinople should hold the precedence ^B, inasmuch as he occupies the throne of the new Rome. They reaffirmed again the faith of Nicaea, and established patriarchs, distributing the provinces ^C so that bishops might not cross beyond their own diocese to foreign churches. Nectarius receives the Imperial City and Thrace; the patriarchate of the Pontic diocese is allotted to Helladius of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Otreius of Melitene; the Asiatic [diocese] is allotted to Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia; the regions of Egypt were entrusted to Timothy of Alexandria. The administration of the Eastern churches they entrusted to Pelagius of Laodicea, and Diodorus of Tarsus, while safeguarding the dignity of the Church of Antioch, which they granted to Meletius, who was present. The synod also defined that, if need should call, the synod of the province should manage those matters that happen within each province. The affairs regarding Maximus were also subjected to examination—he who was Alexandrian by birth, a Cynic philosopher in his way of life, and a fervent supporter of the doctrine of the Nicaean synod—having been ordained ^D secretly by the Egyptians who were gathered there at that time, and having been constituted bishop of Constantinople while Gregory the Theologian still occupied this see. And it was decreed that he had never been, nor was, bishop, nor were the clergy ordained by him, but that what was done regarding him and by him remained null and void.

NICETAS CHONIATES FROM BOOK VIII OF THE TREASURY OF ORTHODOX FAITH

^A 1. Nestorius originated from the town of Germanicia; I do not know with what disciplines he was acquainted from the beginning. Moving from place to place, like some Egyptian scourge, he rushed into the great city of the Antiochenes. There he became a moderate participant in the liberal arts, and having practiced a voice that was most beautiful and impressive, he crept into the Church of God. Being inscribed in the catalogue of presbyters and entrusted with the care of teaching the people of God, he showed from the very beginning what he would be throughout his entire life. For he did not pursue the kind of oratory that is clever, noble, and capable of cultivating the souls of men, but, inclined toward the adulation of the people and being, more than anyone else, an enthusiast for applause dissipated into the air, he imbued the base and unstable throng with his own desire. Clad in a dark cloak, walking about with a gloomy expression, avoiding the tumult of the forum, and tempering his appearance with a bodily pallor, he wished to be seen as one who practices self-restraint. Mostly staying at home, absorbed in books and conversing with himself in leisure, he caught the multitude with such habits and pretenses. He proceeded to a great age, desiring to appear a Christian rather than to be one, and preferring his own glory to the glory of Christ.

^B 2. But since, as it was said by the Lord, there is nothing secret that shall not be known, nor anything hidden that shall not come to light, and because good works are manifest and evil deeds cannot be hidden, according to the unsearchable abyss of the judgments of God, Nestorius, by the suffrage of those who sit near the royal thrones and of him who at that time held the scepters of the whole world, is entrusted with the presidency of the orthodox Catholic Church at Constantinople, and no less with that of the whole world. When he had ascended that great throne and had snatched the leadership of the episcopate as if it were a kind of tyranny, he could no longer hold back within himself the offspring of his impiety. Instead, conceiving an unheard-of audacity from his power, he brought into the open and set before all the blasphemy against the Only-Begotten which he had long ago devised, and he openly declared war against the apostolic dogmas. He attempted to cast out the sayings of the holy Fathers, from the time when the Gospel of the faith of the orthodox leaders was announced, troubling the Church of the royal city

^A, troubling also the whole inhabited world; nor did he turn back even when the divine Paul cried out: "He who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is." Instead, upon the lampstand of the divine episcopal chair, he places not the light of truth, but the darkness of impiety.

3. ^B There came to him first the attempt of innovation: that one ought not to confess the most holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, according to the flesh, of the Word of God, but only the Mother of Christ, while the heralds of the Church, both of old and of time long past, according to the apostolic tradition, taught that she should be named and believed to be the Mother of God and the Mother of the Lord. Come now, observe also this blasphemous sophistry of his, known to no one before him: "The appellation of Christ," he says, "signifies two natures, namely the divinity of the Only-begotten and the humanity; but the word 'Goded' taken by itself presents the simple and incorporeal substance of the Word of God; and the word 'man' indicates only the human nature. For this reason," he says, "it is necessary to confess the Virgin to be the Mother of Christ, but not the Mother of God, lest we happen, without realizing it, to say that the Word of God received a beginning of existence from the holy Virgin, and so be forced to confess that the mother was born before Him who was born from her, according to the sequence."

4. ^C But that we may not seem to be accusing this man with empty insults solely, I shall make him himself the witness of his own impiety by the things he has said. For, having cast out from his own mind the memory of all apostolic teachings and of every saint, he proclaimed in the Church of the orthodox many such voices: "Mary, my good sir, did not give birth to God, but gave birth to a man, the instrument of the divinity." And again in other babblings, he compares the irreproachable Mother to the gods of the Gentiles. For, having embraced the Jewish sentiment, he did not say that the Word had become flesh unchangeably, ^D but that He inhabited a certain man, as into one of the prophets, and made this one His own by a special love; and that there was one Son, but another who was called so, not a genuine Son, but the adoptive son who was called Jesus Christ. Thence it was said that there were two Sons, and not one only. Therefore, by synodal suffrage and the royal will, he is expelled from the episcopate, and being ordered to inhabit the Oasis he received the prelude of the future punishment of the impious, being consumed by his own madness and fulfilling in himself that apostolic oracle: "Some men's sins are clearly evident, leading to judgment." For God stirred up against him the spirit of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, who wrote to Nestorius, urging him into the orthodox faith and exhorting him to name and believe the holy Mary to be the Theotokos. But when he did not yield to his entreaties, he sent another letter again; yet, as he spoke against it, a synod is later assembled at

by the prefect of the city and many others, a synod is convened and Nestorius is invited to come there. ^A

5. Theodosius the Younger held the reins of the empire at that time; and presiding over this third synod were Cyril of Alexandria, Celestine of Rome, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Acacius of Melitene. Nestorius is deposed, but the two previous synods are confirmed, and they confess Him to be perfect and one Son in divinity, and perfect in humanity, and one, not two Sons, as the definition proclaimed by them declares. And thus the synod is dissolved. But John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, resisting the blessed Cyril under the pretext that the definition had been proclaimed without them, even though the great Cyril had awaited them for many days—while in truth they were behaving contentiously and incorrectly toward him—they too departed, discordant, to their own opinions, stirring up much tumult in the meantime; so much so that Theodoret composed twelve other chapters against the twelve chapters of Cyril, and Cyril himself again defended himself against these, and fittingly established his own chapters. After the emperor, however, was informed of these things, he became angry at them, and especially at holy Cyril. Wherefore Acacius of Melitene was sent to him, a man pious and learned, who had attained the highest degree of prudence, who explained the acts of the synod to the king and composed his mind; and what had been proclaimed received validity. Cyril then returned to his own city; and those who were at variance received unity. ^{B C}

NICETAS CHONIATES EXCERPT FROM BOOK IX OF THE TREASURY OF ORTHODOX FAITH

Concerning Eutyches

1. In the time of the reign of Theodosius the Younger, there was in the royal city a certain archimandrite named Eutyches, who was in charge of a monastery; this monastery was formerly at the borders of the seventh [milestone], lay outside Constantinople, and was called after Job. Now, however, it is seen within the city and is adjacent to the church of St. Mocius; and Faustus and Dalmatius, along with Isaac, are honored in it, since Constantinople received an expansion later from the same Theodosius, by whom, they say, the land walls of this city were erected in sixty days. Whether this report is true

^A I do not know with accuracy. This wretched Eutyches, therefore, blaspheming, said that he knew our Lord Jesus Christ to have consisted of two natures before the union, but of one after the union; and that the most holy Theotokos was consubstantial with us, but that the God-Word who took flesh from her was not consubstantial with us. "For I say," he says, "that the body of Christ is the body of Christ, but it is no longer the body of a man." Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, being his friend and acquaintance, often urged him not to utter such dogmas, which are contrary to the true faith; but seeing him unchangeable, he reported it to Flavian, who was at that time the patriarch of Constantinople.

2. And after Flavian had summoned Eutyches and examined the matter ^B with the synod of bishops that was resident there, Eutyches, seeing himself being condemned, persuaded a certain man named Nomus, who was at that time consul, and Chrysaphius the chamberlain, surnamed Zymbas, who were of the same mind as himself, to inform the emperor regarding the things that concerned him, saying that a pious and just man was being treated ill by the patriarch. This having been done, Florentius the patrician, from the rank of the ex-consuls and prefects, was sent to sit in the synod of Flavian and not to allow Eutyches to be unjustly harassed. Therefore, in the second examination that was set, Eutyches was convicted of evil doctrine even more than before, and he was deposed from the priesthood. But Nomus and Chrysaphius, having taken advantage of the emperor's light-mindedness, induced him to order that a synod be held at Ephesus ^C and that the most holy Flavian be judged together with the deposed Eutyches, with Dioscorus of Alexandria judging, who was of the same mind as Eutyches, and with the presence also of Barsumas the presbyter and archimandrite of a certain monastery in the East, who was thought to be orthodox and irreproachable in his life, while being in his heresy someone else than Eutyches; and that the ones presiding over the synod were Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra in Galatia, Basil of Seleucia in Isauria, and Eustathius of Berytus; and that Dioscorus held all authority and power; and that Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum were also present, yet that they should do or say nothing, as not holding the rank of judges but waiting for the votes of the others, since, he said, the things decided by them were now being judged ^D as if they were not acting in the role of judges, but waiting for the vote of the others.

3. The synod having therefore gathered, Flavian entered as a defendant, and he sat fifth. The representatives of Leo, the most holy Pope of Rome, Julius the bishop and Hilarius the deacon, bringing forward his dogmatic letter which had been sent to the synod, asked that it be read; but those around Dioscorus did not allow it. Eutyches having then been brought in, Dioscorus asked him whether he adhered to the synod of Nicaea and to the synod of Ephesus that was in agreement with it. And when he said that he did adhere, he did not examine him any further regarding the heresy, but spoke thus: Since Eutyches says that he adheres to the synod of Nicaea and to the Ephesine

^A synod, we consider him orthodox, and worthy of the priesthood, of his rank, and of his own monastery. Having spoken these things, he saw to it that everyone—and Barsumas himself—should subscribe to the acquittal of Eutyches. Then he spoke again: "Since the synod at Nicaea and the former one here at Ephesus have established that it is permitted for no one to propound another faith, or to inquire, or to innovate anything, or in any way to stir up matters concerning our holy religion, and since Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Doryleum appear to be the cause of scandal and disturbance for the churches, we judge them to be excluded from every priestly and episcopal ^B dignity." Having spoken these words, he forced the bishops to subscribe to an unwritten paper; and afterwards, having written the deposition of Flavian and Eusebius just as he wished, he subscribed to it himself, as did Barsumas. And when Flavian had said to Dioscorus, "I recuse you," he struck him with his heel, and by that mortal wound provided the beginning of his death; others, however, say that Barsumas, having taken him up in order to lead him into exile toward the regions of the East, ordered him to be slaughtered on the journey. Dioscorus also deposed Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas of Edessa, and Domnus of Antioch, and others of the Orientals, all of whom were absent; and he ordained Maximus in place of Domnus. Eusebius of Doryleum, fleeing from there, came to Rome to Leo the Great in the regions ^C of Italy.

4. But in the meantime, since Theodosius had departed this life, Marcian and Pulcheria wrote to the most holy Leo; and it was decided that a synod be convened in Constantinople. Therefore, they gathered in the venerable temple of the holy martyr Euphemia at Chalcedon. From the most illustrious ^D officials: Anatolius, patrician from the consuls and commander-in-chief; Palladius, praetorian prefect; Tatianus, city prefect; Vicomallus, master of the divine offices; Martialis, master; Sporadius, count of the domestics; and Genethlius, count of the privy purse. And from the illustrious senators: Florentius, patrician from the prefects and consuls; a senator from the consuls and patricians; Protogenes, from the city prefects; Apollonius, from the prefects; Romanus, from the praepositi; and Olygius, from the prefects of Illyricum. These officials and senators having sat in the middle, in front of the chancel of the holy altar, the vicars of the Roman Pope, and Anatolius of Constantinople, and Maximus of Antioch, and Thalassius of Caesarea, and Stephanus of Ephesus, and the rest of the Eastern, Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, excluding the Palestinians, sat on the left side. On the right side were Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenalis of Jerusalem, Cyntillus the vicar for Anastasius of Thessalonica, Petrus of Corinth, and the rest from the Egyptian, Illyrian, and Palestinian [dioceses]. The vicars of the Roman Pope were the bishops Paschasinus and Lucinius, and the presbyter Bonifacius. Theodoret of Cyrrhus was also present. For there, having been held as a Nestorian on account of his having written against the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, he had been deposed by Dioscorus; but when he had approached Leo, the Pope of Rome, and had proclaimed his own faith, he was honored...

as orthodox. Having received letters from him to the Emperor Theodosius, he was ordered to be at leisure for this alone; but under Marcian, having offered petitions accusing those who had not righteously anathematized him as a heretic, he recovered his bishopric.

5. All having gathered, therefore, as has been said, the vicars of the Roman Pope, speaking first, opined that Dioscorus ought not to sit with the synod. But the magistrates having said that he ought not to be expelled from the assembly before he was condemned, Eusebius of Dorylaeum arose to accuse him; and thus, by order of the magistrates, Dioscorus was placed in the midst. ^B And at the insistence of Eusebius that his petition against Dioscorus, which had been handed to the Emperor, be read, the magistrates decided that he should be set in the midst and the petition read. It set forth how Dioscorus had non-canonically deposed Flavian and the other orthodox, while declaring the heretic Eutyches innocent. Then, the letter which had been sent by the Emperor Theodosius to Dioscorus was read; and since among other things it also made mention of Theodoret, decreeing that he should not come to the second synod held at Ephesus unless it pleased all who had gathered, the magistrates said, "Let Theodoret also enter to share in the synod, since the most holy Leo has restored his bishopric." And the most divine Emperor ordered him to be present.

^C The magistrates discussed that he should enter for the time being in the capacity of an accuser, and be placed in the midst. Dioscorus was therefore accused by the vicars of the Roman Pope and by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, on the grounds that, having sworn seven times before everyone to read the letter of the most holy Pope Leo, he had not read it, and from this he is judged to be a perjurer; and that he had immediately brought forward the holy Flavian as one condemned, and did not even deem him worthy of a defense, but deposed him thus without a trial. Dioscorus, however, making his defense regarding these matters, said: "The Emperor did not entrust the judgment ^D to me alone, but also to Juvenal and Thalassius and the others, and the whole synod consented to the things decided." The Eastern bishops cried out: "No one consented; force was used; deposition was threatened against us; soldiers stood over us with clubs and swords; and forced by blows, we signed blank paper."

7. As Basil of Seleucia was rebuking Dioscorus somewhat more vehemently, and was opining rightly against Eutyches, the magistrates asked him: "Why, you who now think rightly, did you then sign the deposition of Flavian?" He, however, pleaded the violence applied by Dioscorus. When the latter said, "You ought not to have feared men in such a way that you incurred reproach and fell," he replied: "If I had stood before magistrates, I would have protested; but being judged by you as by a just father, I did not dare; for a son, he says, [fearing] a just father..."

^A dies. Eusebius of Doryleum said that, while Flavian, who had deposed Eutyches, was being judged, it was not permitted for the accuser of Eutyches to enter the synod. And the presidents [asked] Dioscorus, as one accusing him of being a transgressor of the canons: "And you," they said, "transgress the canons by allowing Theodoret to enter the synod." They answered, "He has entered to accuse us." He said, "And why, then, does he sit as a bishop?" And the presidents replied, "It is well; Eusebius and Theodoret shall sit in the order of accusers, because you also sit in the order of the accused."

^B 8. Post-factum, when those things which had been done at Constantinople by Flavian regarding the deposition of Eutyches, and those which had been transacted at Ephesus again by Dioscorus regarding the deposition of Flavian, had all been read; and when the right and true opinion was being sought, and Flavian was found to have said that Christ is from two natures and that there are two natures, while Dioscorus said that he accepted "from two natures" but did not accept "two natures," and that there were no two natures after the union, the presidents and the council said: "We understand that a more accurate examination of the right faith ought to be held on the following day; ^C but since Flavian and Eusebius, from the reading of those things which were done by them, and by the voice of certain authors of the deposition, are shown not to have erred in the faith, but to have been deposed without cause, it seems to us, according to the good pleasure of God, to be just if we certify our most divine Emperor that Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, the authors of that synod, have been subject to the same penalty and have fallen from the episcopal dignity": [the assembly cried] "We have read it, we have read it." It should be known that when a sentence was finally pronounced by the presidents and transcribed by the ministering notaries, one of them was accustomed to subscribe it with that [word]: *legimus* (we have read), so that the sentence might be firm and no suspicion might arise that anything had been adulterated by the amanuenses. And such indeed was the end of the first act.

^D Sequuntur in codice reliquarum actionum synodi summaria, quæ nos prætermittimus. [Summaries of the remaining acts of the synod follow in the codex, which we pass over.]

9. It is necessary to know that, after this holy synod deposed him who had been bishop of Alexandria, his supporters departed from the Catholic Church and named themselves "dissenters" because they did not adhere to the things decreed by the Fathers gathered at Chalcedon, and were divided into twelve sects, of which those who are called Eutychians accept Eutyches and Dioscorus, who also say that the Lord Christ is consubstantial with the Father, but not with us, because they do not believe that the truth of human nature is preserved in Christ; whereas those who...

are called ^A Acephali did not accept the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno, because the Council of Chalcedon was not anathematized in it. They were called Acephali because they had no bishops; hence, their priests having failed, they do not even perform baptism according to the ecclesiastical canon, but on the feast of the holy Theophany they draw water and, keeping it, they baptize in it; nor do they perform the oblation. However, possessing communion preserved from earlier times, they distribute from it at the feast of Easter the tiniest portions to those who assemble.

10. Others are called Julianists, or Gaianites, who say that the body of the Lord Christ is indeed created, but incorruptible from the very moment of its incorruptible conception. Others say that by that assumption it is not only incorruptible, but also uncreated. Both are called Julianists from a certain Julian of Halicarnassus, the author of this doctrine; and Gaianites from Gaian, who became their pope at Alexandria and was a successor to Julian and a supporter of his dogmas; whom their opponents call Phantasiasts and Manichaeans. They, in turn, call their opponents Phtartolatras (worshippers of corruption) and Ctenolatras (worshippers of the slain). Then there are the Severians—also known as Agnoetae—who say that God the Word knows all things, but that the humanity personally united to Him is ignorant of many things; they were termed Agnoetae by their opponents because of this doctrine. There are other Severians, also called Contobabditae, who say that there is only one God in number ^C and not by an identical equality, asserting that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same. These were named Contobabditae by their opponents because in those parts of Constantinople which were called Contobabdon, they had a hateful conventicle, and those who held such views were accustomed to gather there. Now those who were called Contobabditae, who were also termed Agnoetae, were at first called Theodosians, as they accepted Theodosius who had become pope of Alexandria. But after being struck with anathema by him—the Agnoetae on account of their doctrine of ignorance, and the Contobabditae because they would not receive the doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity which had been set forth by him—they were thereafter no longer called Theodosians by their opponents, since they no longer received Theodosius, as has been said. But some [are called] Agnoetae from their doctrine, ^D and others Contobabditae, from their place. They indeed agree in their discourse concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as holding one doctrine, but they disagree regarding the doctrine of ignorance. Both parties, however, accept Severus, who became bishop of Antioch, and for that reason they are also called Severians.

11. Others are Severians, also called Theodosians and Paulianists, who accept the aforementioned Severus and Theodosius, and with them Paul, surnamed Melanus, who in their doctrine concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit agree with the Contobabditae, but they disagree

^A with them in that the former accept Theodosius and Paul as bishops, while the Contobabditae reject both. Others are the Severites, who are also called Theodosians and Angelites and Damianites, who accept the aforementioned Severus and Theodosius, and with them Damian, who say that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, another; and that each of these is not a nature by himself, but they have a common God, that is, a divinity contained in them, and by partaking of this undivided, each is God. They call the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit one person, but their common God the essence and nature. The Angelites, moreover, were called such by their adversaries from a certain place in Alexandria ^B so named, in which those who held the first place among them were accustomed to meet, having a gathering place there. But their opponents call them Sabellians and Tetradites; and the same were also called Damianites after their bishop Damian. These men previously accepted the aforementioned Paul as bishop, but later rejected him because he communicated with the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and accepted the holy synod at Chalcedon.

12. Petrites, who accept the last Peter as bishop, who, while accepting Theodosius and Severus and Peter, do not accept Damian nor Paul, accusing the doctrines of each. For they confess God ^C in truth, and in essence, and in nature, each by himself, saying that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not by number, but by a nature equal in all respects; whom the Angelianites and Paulianites call Tritheites, and they in turn call them now Sabellians, now Tetradites. Other Severites, that is, Theodosians who are also Cononites, who accept Theodosius and Severus and with them the bishop Conon, who also themselves confess God to be each one in truth, and in nature, and in essence, calling the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—furthermore, they also say the holy Trinity has three hypostases and three persons, while saying there are three essences and natures in number, equal and in every way similar according to the divinity. But they confess one essence, that is, nature, and one divinity, that is, God, the holy and consubstantial Trinity, not by number, but by the most similar divinity, and are accused of saying there are three gods or divinities.

13. And these men, receiving Severus and Theodosius, accept neither Damian nor Paul nor the last Peter. Those of Damian and Paul call them Tritheites, ^D and they in turn call them now Sabellians and Artemonites, now Tetradites. They differ, however, from the last Peter and those with him, because those of the latter party, refusing to say there are three gods, that is, three divinities—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—refuse also to say there are three essences in number that are equal and in every way similar; but these men refuse to say there are three gods, that is, divinities; however, they confess three essences in number, that is, certain equal natures. Those who are called Cononites, previously of John

the Alexandrian grammarian, surnamed Philoponus, receiving his writings against the Greeks along with his other works, eventually rejected both him ^A and his writings; for the aforementioned grammarian John, in his books to the Greeks and in his other writings, had taught that all these sensible bodies, according to matter and form, were brought into existence by God from nothing, and that they were made corruptible and would perish according to both matter and form, and that in their place other bodies, better than these visible ones, incorruptible and eternal, were to be created by God; he also called the consummation of the visible world a passing away and the generation of a new world; and he defined the resurrection of the dead as an indissoluble union of rational souls with a corruptible body.

14. Conon, therefore, and his followers, as we have said, formerly accepting the writings in which he taught these things, and deeming both Philoponus himself, while living and after his death, blessed, finally rejected both that man himself and his writings; they published written discourses in which they say that these sensible and visible bodies are not corrupted as to their matter, but remain the same and visible forever and not corrupted, but are corrupted only as to their form and are formed anew, the same matter receiving a better and incorruptible form; for they say that the generation of the visible world existed according to both matter and form, but its corruption, that is, its passing away, [exists] only according to form; for they confess that the matter, as we have said, always remains the same; but the resurrection of the dead they define as this body’s second indissoluble union with the rational soul.

15. Other Severians, that is, Theodosians, who are also called Philoponians, who accept Severus and Theodosius as bishops, also accept John Philoponus as a teacher and his writings, and follow him not only in his opinions concerning the Trinity, but also in his doctrine regarding the consummation of the visible world and the generation of both the visible and future worlds, and the resurrection of the dead. These men accept neither Damian, ^C nor Paul, nor the last, Peter. And although they had previously accepted Conon, they later rejected him, for the reason that he himself had rejected John Philoponus and his writings; and in their opinions concerning the Trinity they agree with the Cononites, and are named Tritheites by the Angelianists and Paulianists; and they themselves also name them now Sabellianists, now Tetradites. But concerning the consummation of the visible world and the resurrection of the dead, they are clearly opposed to them. The Cononites themselves call all the Philoponians Sadducees, and Simonians, and Greeks, and Valentinians, and Marcionites, and Manichaeans, and Hermogenians; and the Philoponians attribute these same names to the Cononites ^D because they say that the matter of this sensible world remains incorruptible. The Cononites, indeed, [attribute these same names] to the Philoponians...

because they deny that there is a resurrection of these bodies. Furthermore, both parties, both the Philoponians and the Cononites, call one another Origenists; for having found that Origen said that this matter is reformed in the world to come, and that because of this the resurrection of the same bodies occurs, the Philoponians called the Cononites Origenists; and again, the Cononites, having found that Origen said there is a resurrection of other bodies—for the man was inconsistent—called the Philoponians Origenists. The Philoponians accept a certain bishop named Origen and the books published by him.

16. Others are the Severians, namely the Theodosians, who are also called Niobites, ^B who, while accepting Severus and Theodosius, also accept the Sophist Stephen, surnamed Niobes. They agree, indeed, in their doctrines concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Contobabdites and the Agnoetae, but in their doctrines concerning the Economy they disagree not only with them, but also with all the others; for all are unwilling in any way to say that there are two natures in the mystery of Christ after the union, yet they confess the distinction of the natures even after the union; these men, however, refusing to confess two natures after the union, are not even willing to say that the difference of the natures is preserved after the union.

17. What the schisms of these people are, and how many there are, and what their names are, and what the dogma of each of the schisms is for those who call themselves separate, we have briefly indicated in the things spoken. All of these men, ^C emulating the practices of Arius and his disciples, just as those did, have made themselves outside the ecclesiastical fold; for they too displayed a thousand machinations, striving to drive the holy and ecumenical council of Nicaea from the Church; and these men similarly practiced manifold tricks and word-battles, desiring to drive the ecumenical and holy council of Chalcedon from the Church. But what they plotted against the holy Fathers, the divine sentence turned upon them, placing them outside the ecclesiastical fold; for "they sharpened their tongue ^D as a serpent," 1 as it is written; "they bent their bow, a bitter thing, to shoot in secret at the blameless; they strengthened for themselves a wicked speech, they related to hide a snare; they said, Who shall see them? They searched out iniquities, they failed in their searchings," but according to the divine word, "The wounds of infants became their spear, and their tongues were weakened against them; 2 they were divided and were not stung." But the Church of God rejoiced, as she contemplated the vengeance of the holy Fathers. And the God of truth was glorified, while the ecclesiastical dogmas

received firmness and solidity. ^A The holy and ecumenical synod, therefore, which assembled at Chalcedon, made brief mention of the things spoken by those who teach that there is one composite nature in Christ. But, to say a few things out of many, they set forth the reasoning which they impiously propose for the defense of their own dogma.

Exposition of certain chapters proposed by the Monophysites.

18. Whether anything one has been made from the union of the two natures in Christ, or not? If, therefore, nothing one has been made from them, how shall we say that they have been united at all? For what else is to be united than to become one? We do not confess the union by way of illumination, as in the case of the prophets. But if something one has been made from the union of the two natures, what then is this one? Is it merely a vain name, or is it a reality? If, therefore, it were merely a vain name without a reality, the natures would not be united; just as the dog star and the starless dog, ^B possessing unity through the name alone, are not united in their natures, nor is the real man and the man who is depicted. Therefore, if the natures are united insofar as they have being, and for this reason, from their union—that is, their composition—something one has been made, then this is not a vain name, but a reality. But if it is a reality, is this a nature, that is, an essence, or something of the accidents pertaining to the essence? Therefore, if they have been united by the very fact of their being, and for this reason something one is perfected from their union, and it is neither a vain name nor some accident or consequence of nature, it must of necessity be an essence or nature (let it be understood now that both terms signify the same thing, I mean by essence and nature). If, therefore, that one which is perfected from the union of the two natures is a nature, that is to say, an essence, we rightly confess, then, that there is one nature of the Lord Christ after the union, although we say that it is not simple but composite. ^C For the name "Christ" cannot be indicative of both natures. For if there were not something one, which is perfected from the union of the two natures, it would be impossible either for the one name of "man" to be predicated of soul and body, or for the name of "Christ" to be given to both Christ's divinity and humanity, unless something one was made from them. ^D

Another proposition of the Monophysites.

19. If the natures of Christ, once united, are two—and it is the same to say "essences," for the divine and the human are without doubt essences, from which they infer the name of the duality of natures—is Christ someone other than his own natures, or is he the same as his own natures? If, therefore, Christ is other than his own natures, who is he, that he can be other than them? But nothing among beings is other than its own nature or essence. For if the nature of man, I mean the essence, consists in what is a rational, mortal animal (for the definitions of things indicate their essences), if man were something different from his essence, he would not be...

^A different from the rational mortal animal. Man is nothing other than a rational, mortal animal; therefore, if Christ also exists as different from his own natures, or essences – and since being belongs to each thing according to its nature or essence, as we have shown – then Christ himself will be different from himself, which is both absurd and ridiculous. Christ, therefore, is not different from his own natures; but if he is not different, then it is the same thing to speak of Christ and of his natures, since you yourselves, who say the opposite, admit that the name "Christ" is indicative of two natures. But if Christ is identical with his natures, just as man is identical with human nature, that is, with the rational, mortal animal, and if Christ's natures are two and not one, then there will also be two Christs, as Nestorius thinks, and not one according to the Scriptures. If, therefore, in truth Christ is one in name and in reality, and in no way is it permitted to speak of two Christs regarding the Lord’s Incarnation, and yet Christ is identical with his nature, that is, his essence, just as is the case for all other things, then the nature of Christ will necessarily and evidently be one.

Another proposition of the same.

20. Just as even though many differences of physical powers are observed in the sun, for example, light and heat, the three dimensions, spherical form, circular motion, and anything else of this kind, yet it is not therefore necessary to say that there are multiple natures of the sun (for none of these by itself constitutes the nature of the sun, but rather the union of all the aforementioned things, which is at once one and many, constitutes one sun and one nature for it); so too, with respect to the God-man Christ, even if the differences of divinity and humanity are observed in him, those who are able to estimate the nature of things correctly (it is on this account that two codices read so) will not dare to speak of his two natures ^C (for none of these would by itself be Christ, neither his divinity nor his humanity); but rather, the union from both, which is indeed one and not two, and not observed in any other thing, compels us to confess one Christ and one nature of his.

Another exposition.

21. If the dyad is indicative of the first contemplation from the monad, and division is opposed to unity, for this reason, it is impossible for the same thing at the same time and in the same respect to be both united and divided. No dyad, therefore, in so far as it is a dyad, can be called united, but rather ^D divided. And so, regarding Christ, if his natures are two and not one, and every dyad, in so far as it is a dyad, existing as a double, is divided according to this, and not united, then Christ’s two natures, if according to their very being they are two and not merely one, are in accordance with this divided and not united, and the doctrine of Nestorius is introduced.

^A

Another proposition.

22. We often apply a number to continuous things, as, for example, we say a piece of wood is two cubits long. But we say that it is one in potentiality, not in actuality; and because it is able to undergo division and become two, in this sense we say that it consists of two cubits.

Another proposition.

23. If Christ is one in name and in reality, and every definition—if it is not equivocal—is indicative of one nature, then the number of Christ is also indicative of His one nature. But if, according to you, Christ’s two natures have two definitions that do not signify the same thing, then Christ Himself, being one, will have two definitions that do not signify the same thing. But if this is impossible (for of every single thing there is but one definition), then Christ will not have two definitions. If this is so, then there will not be two natures of Him; for each definition signifies one nature, whether it be simple or composite. ^B

Another.

24. If the name "Christ" is not indicative of essence, but is indicative of some accident of the nature arising from the union of the two natures that have been made, this is nothing other than a relative state of the natures. But the two natures remain, even when united in Christ; therefore, the union of the natures with one another has occurred only according to a bare state—as is the case with a chorus, a house, a city, and the stones and wood of which a building consists—just as Nestorius is found to teach. ^C

Another.

25. If things that are united become one, those that have not become one are of necessity not united. If, therefore, the natures of Christ are two and not one, and a dyad represents duality and is indicative of division, and things that are divided are not united, then the natures of Christ are not united. If, therefore, they maintain that there are two natures of Christ because they are unmixed, they will be forced, because of the union, to say that His nature is one. ^D

Another.

26. Not as many as are the properties of each thing are also its natures; for if so, nothing having its own existence would have one nature, since many properties or differences are observed in each; rather, the nature is the amalgam of all those things which constitute the subject. For light and levity are properties of fire, but we do not say that light or levity is the nature of fire; just as the properties of air are being colorless and sound-transmitting; as one can see other properties in the case of the other elements. But no one will dare to say that each thing is of many natures because it has many properties; so too, therefore, in the case of Christ, regarding His divinity and...

humanity, if they were to say that His natures are two, or that He is to be contemplated in two natures—just as we say that a whole is contemplated in its parts, or that the parts of the Word are as many as these, recognizing the one that has been perfected from the union of all—much as if one were to say that a triangle consists of three straight lines, while the form of the triangle itself is one, created from the joining of the three straight lines; and furthermore that a house consists of stones and wood, while the species of the house is again one, which came to be from their composition—perhaps one might concede this to the argument. For if the things of which Christ consists are two, it would amount to the same thing to say that Christ is from two natures, and that He is in two natures, and that the triangle is in three straight lines, and from three, and each of the other things mentioned, so that the difference lies only in the wording, and not in the things we think of by the wording; so that it is permissible to speak of one nature of the composite, existing in two simple ones, just as we say that there is one wholeness in many parts. But if they absolutely refuse to say that the nature of the whole is one composite nature, we will with good reason also be suspicious of the expression "in two." And we do not, because Christ is one, deny the things of which that one consists, nor, again, because we recognize two natures coming together into a union, do we fail to confess that from them one perfect something has been fashioned; so whether one wishes to call this one nature, or hypostasis, or one Christ, we will not dispute, for through each term the others are necessarily brought along. ^B Responsio unica, neque longius eadem exposita ad constratas supra Monophysitarum opiniones.

27. Such, then, as can be seen from what is brief, are those who teach that there is one nature in Christ; they speak most dangerously and intolerably, attempting to constitute divine things from human and earthly experiments. What I have said before, I say now: namely, that the opinion of Eutyches and Dioscorus, and of those who agree with them, is divided; it is not one and consistent. For Eutyches himself denied the assumption of the body, saying that the divine Word received nothing human from the Virgin, but that He Himself was immutably changed and became flesh, having merely made a passage through the Virgin; and that the uncircumscribed, infinite, and incomprehensible divinity of the Only-Begotten was nailed to the cross, and was taken down, and, having been consigned to the tomb, obtained resurrection. Driven by giddiness to the path of contradictions, and not confident in their union, he taught that the Word proceeded without generation, and that He did not in truth put on a body, but so disposed the order of things that all things pertaining to the body are believed to be fictitious: the emergence from the mother’s womb, the swelling of the breasts, and the whole order of the economy—as if the Word had united to Himself only a shadow and an image of our nature. ^D 28. But the so-called Monophysites, like Eutyches...

^A in a supposititious countenance and fictitious face, taught that the Word feigned the incarnation; so likewise these, turning to the opposite of this, have dared to speak of one nature in Christ. For while they indeed say that one person has remained after the union, they do not preserve the united natures as pure and unconfused in their own proper characteristics, but say that after the union both have become one thing, confused in their commingling. And they claim that a common, different result appears from the mixture, just as bodies that have undergone a commingling from the four elements are something different than those elements. Neither the wild beast nor our own body is pure fire, or air, or any of the other elements; rather, they were compounded from them, and after the compounding, they became something else. But the matter does not stand thus with Him. On the contrary, because the divine form, that is, the nature, in one of its persons was united to the complete human nature, it did not become something else from this ineffable mixture and union, but after the union the natures remain unconfused.

29. But that we may look to an example, let us suppose an individual man; his body and soul attained to the person of a certain one; ^B yet the particular man is not something else beyond these. So far, let the example stand. For if we proceed further, we shall find much difference. For in the case of a particular man, the body and the soul are spoken of specifically, and neither would the soul ever be called body, nor would the body be called soul. But in the case of the person of God among us, we could courageously call God man, and man God, the names being transposed and given interchangeably, according to the ineffable union. And there is a common species for particular men; whence, according to this individuality, they are said to be similar in all respects. For men, though differing individually in their characteristics, have an omnimodic similarity according to the species. But of that divine hypostasis of natures, there is no common name called "Christ," as the term "man" is for us, because there are not many such Christs, ^C but one is the boundary and Word of the Father, who by His divinity anointed the humanity.

30. If anyone, agreeing with Eutyches, should encounter and object that a man consists of two natures, and that this man was assumed by God—who is another nature beyond man—so that one must believe Christ to be formed of three natures (that is, two of man, namely soul and body, and one proper to God), this would be the answer to him: that the things united are said to be united from the immediate [constituents], but not from the remote ones. For why does he himself not say that man is composed of five, ^D or, to speak more truly, of seven: one [of] the soul, four of the elements of the body, and moreover matter and form, which are more remote? And so we, saying that Christ consists of two natures, accept man as one nature, looking to the immediate [constituents], and not to the natures of which he is composed.

^A Since therefore he assumed this common definition of the human nature, making it individual in the assumption, for this reason we dogmatize that Christ consists of two natures. And even after the union we speak of one person, who is indeed both God and perfect man because of the most novel interchange; for he did not corrupt the natures, but preserves those things from which and in which he exists, even as they are by nature. For he exists from two natures, and he exists in these natures; or rather, he is nothing else besides them, but this very thing, two natures, perfect God and perfect man. For if that from which a thing is derived is not the same as the things from which it is derived—since, according to Plato, heaven is composed of fire and earth, but heaven itself is not what those things are—Christ, however, is the very things from which he is composed, the mixture effecting nothing else. Therefore, Christ is from two natures and is in these two natures. ^B But also to take an example: the sun is one, yet there are two natures in it, that of the light and that of the solar body. And Christ is one, but there are two natures, one superior to us and one that is our own. For in the same and single name, the meaning of both realities is shown, I mean of divinity and humanity. Therefore Christ is called man, and Christ is called God. Assuredly, even when his body was being struck by the servant, just as if he himself were suffering, he said, "Why do you strike me?" And although he was untouchable in his nature, yet he said, "I have given my back to the strikers" (Isa. L, 6). For the things that the humanity of the Word suffered, the Word, being united to it, referred to himself. For this reason the sun, seeing its Creator suffering in a mistreated body, drew back its rays and darkened the earth.

^C 32. And Gregory the Theologian speaks thus: "This is the emptied Deity, this the assumed flesh, not fused by union with God the Word through commixture and terminated in one substance; for the Word did not suffer a mixing or a pouring together with humanity, or a conversion into what he was not, but, dwelling among us, he did not abandon what was his own. He remained what he was, and according to natural union he is conceived as one in another—that is, the divine nature in the humanity—not sustaining a mixture such as is the union of liquids. ^D For if the natures were mixed, being heterogeneous, in a single blending, neither would be preserved, but both would have vanished through confusion. And being mixed, they are capable neither of separation nor of division. Yet they were united in an ineffable and unspeakable way, and each of the simple [elements] in the composite preserves the definition of its own nature; for those things which do not have one definition, of them there is not one nature, nothing

diminished by the concurrence of others with others and their union, by their natural perfection; as can be seen regarding the union of air and light. For the natural property remained manifest on both sides, harmed in nothing by the union. For neither did the light lose anything of its own nature when mixed with the air, nor again did the air suffer anything in the logic of its own substance because it had received the light. Whence we also say that Emmanuel suffered in that nature which could suffer, and remained impassible in the impassible substance of the Divinity; because those things from which Christ is are different and different; and he suffers indeed humanly by reason of the flesh, in so far as he is man; but he is divine and impassible, as God. Nor is he one thing and another thing, as Nestorius wished in his delirium: that the one who was born to suffer suffered, and that the one who was impassible did not suffer, as God. ^B

NICETAS CHONIATES FROM BOOK X OF THE TREASURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH. On the fifth synod, which confirmed and strengthened the fourth synod, [having been] convened under the reign of Justinian.

^C 1. Of the events immediately following the deposition of Dioscorus and Eutyches and after the reading in the synod and the delivery of the letter of the most holy Pope of Rome, Leo. The holy and divine fourth synod [held] at Chalcedon decreed thus to believe and confess our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, recognized in two natures inconfusedly and indivisibly, and to confess one and the same Son as before the incarnation, so also after the incarnation. The difference of the natures [was] not at all taken away after the union, but rather preserved and concurring into one person and one hypostasis; whence each of the Fathers, having prayed much for the Emperor Marcian, returned to their own provinces. ^D

2. The naval force from Alexandria, which was sailing down to Constantinople together with Dioscorus, the bishop of that city, and the chorepiscopi who were under his authority, having stirred up a sedition, works many slaughters of those who had consented to the deposition and exile of their priest Dioscorus, confirming by his actions that the naval disobedience was more violent than fire. But also some of the monks, among the priests from Palestine still lingering in Constantinople, having followed a certain Theodosius as their leader, began to rend the body of the Church...

^A and to tear asunder her seamless tunic, and to anathematize the bishops who were in the synod, and to ordain others in their place; voicing abroad that the synod had confirmed and renewed the doctrine of Nestorius, inventing this under the pretext of the twofold voice concerning the natures. Whence they took possession of all Palestine and Egypt, and the monasteries that were in the desert; and they persuaded the majority of these not to receive what had been sanctioned by the fourth synod.

^B 3. There shone forth in those parts at that time our Father Euthymius, who was named for his virtue, who also departed from this evil doctrine along with his monks. For having received the definition proclaimed by the synod, he gathered them together and in every way tried to persuade them that the synod had made a legitimate and right proclamation of the two natures, and he instructed many, and induced them to believe accordingly. But when that evil spread further, being especially strengthened by the hand of the Empress Eudoxia, who was at that time tarrying near the holy places, having instructed and ordered his own monks not to communicate with the evil doctrine of Theodosius, he withdrew into the desert. Not long after, however, when he had revealed to Eudoxia, through a divine revelation granted to him, her own impending departure from the body, and she was being afflicted with sadness because of the evils of her kinsmen who had been taken captive in the war at Rome, and he said that this had happened by divine permission due to her communion with the heretics, she desisted from such heresy ^C and returned to the dogmas confirmed by the synod, and anathematized the dogmas of Theodosius, who taught a single nature of the Word and the flesh, and proscribed the synod at Chalcedon; and many of the schismatics adhered to her and embraced the dogmas of orthodoxy.

4. When the Church was once again held by no common disturbance, Leo, surnamed Macelles, having been proclaimed emperor after Marcian, desired himself also to convoke a synod concerning these matters. But having learned that the assembly at Chalcedon had been held not long before, and not wishing to vex the bishops again with frequent journeys and removals ^D, he sent mandates to the bishops of each individual province, declaring through them that they should manifest to him with all speed what opinion they held concerning the synod gathered at Chalcedon; which having been done, more than a thousand bishops replied in writing and confirmed the synod. But after Leo had departed this life, and Zeno and Anastasius had shortly thereafter attained the kingdom, the adversaries again took the boldness to speak against the synod, and the multitude of Jacobites and Theodosians reveled, preaching one nature of the Word and the flesh, and anathematizing the synod. The same persons also attempted to overturn the Tome of the holy Pope Leo of Rome; but Eulogius, among the saints,

^A clearly demonstrated to all that it was foreign to be introduced here. Nevertheless, even so, the synod long fell into oblivion, and each person snatched at whatever principle was pleasing to himself; and since individuals fled to the faith acceptable to them, a great multitude of heretics and schismatics grew again. Anastasius, therefore, the prelate of great Antioch, stood up for the synod and set forth dogmatic canons in writing; and he maintained that the synod itself had defined all things well, and he demonstrated that its dogmas were full of piety.

5. Now those around Gaius, and Dioscorus, and Jacob, and later Severus, and John Philoponus—who also brought forth many writings concerning such heresy, ^B which are most oppressive and hard to refute—most impiously taught one nature, but two hypostases. Yet in some places in their own books, they themselves also acknowledge two natures. But one must be attentive so as not to be led astray or deceived by such contradictory discourse, thinking that they in part hold the same opinions as we do—which many, not being precise, have supposed, and from this have been led into their impiety. What then is it that is taught by them? When they distinguish the natures converging in Christ, each by itself, they are compelled to acknowledge that these are two; but when they unite both into the incarnation of the Word, then they do not posit the two as unconfusedly converging, but as one composite nature. ^C For while we name one composite hypostasis, they set against it one composite nature, and they use the Word as a paradigm in this way: that just as man has a soul and a body, and the nature of the soul differs from that of the body if one contemplates each by itself, yet when they come together, they make a man having one composite nature—for it is not right to say that man has two natures, they say, but one composite—so too, after the union, they think Christ to consist of two natures, but to be one composite nature.

6. For this reason, ^D the great Gregory, in his Theology, speaks of "from which," and "in which," and "what things," when dogmatizing about the divine natures. For he posited the "from which" in order to dogmatize the union from the divinity; the "in which," in order to preserve the natures even after the union, and so as not to confuse them through the union of both; and the "what things" (ἅπερ), so that no one might think that Christ became someone else after the union of the natures. And one must consider the precision of the dogma: it is acknowledged that our body is from four elements—fire, air, water, earth—and in these elements the constitution...

is preserved, as is that from which they are, and that in which they are, yet not that which they are. After the union of the elements, our body is not purely fire, nor truly air, nor true and legitimate earth, but something other beyond the elements, which is manifest from the senses. For each of the parts of our body is something other than the elements; but in the divine union, nothing else has been produced after the concurrence of the two natures; rather, this very thing is Christ, both God and man.

5. Such a heresy ^B became, as it were, more accurate than the others because it had wise men as leaders; for John, named Philoponus, is not indeed numbered among the most illustrious for the style of his speech, but he is a most learned philosopher and certainly admirable in his demonstrations. Being invited by Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople at that time, to organize such a heresy in writing, he most skillfully composed a book which he entitled *The Arbitrator*, or *On the Union*, and in ten chapters he wove together the entire division of the heresy, applying all philosophy to this end and refining every demonstration. Yet he did not escape the objections of learned and truly spiritual men. For many others ^C opposed his dogmas, especially the monk Leontius, who in thirty chapters refuted the heresy and strengthened our pious doctrine; and the most admirable George Pisides, who was of the same age as Philoponus, as was his custom, attacked the heresy in iambic meters, and then, mixing jest with reason, speaks thus:

*At least teach one and one.* *For if you call one and one, one,* *These words will cause laughter even to children.* (as in Nicephorus, lib. XVIII, 48).

8. This confusion and disturbance of the Church ^D did not cease at all, and the people standing at the screens of the sanctuary threatened to strike the priests and to displace them from the throne, if they should make mention of the Council of Chalcedon, and if they should inscribe in the diptychs and name the Fathers who had set forth the faith of this council. And these things prevailed until the decree of Justinian. For when he took up the scepter of the kingdom, the leaders of this heresy, like wild beasts, had established their abode in caverns and hiding places. For a council of one hundred and sixty-five holy Fathers is convoked at Constantinople, in which were Eutychius of Constantinople, Virgilius of Rome, Apollinarius of Alexandria, and others, and the Council of Chalcedon is confirmed, with the same dogmas being proclaimed again in it, and the symbol of faith being likewise set forth. Yet furthermore, defining that our Lord Jesus Christ has, for the sake of our salvation, a will and an operation according to each nature, they anathematized the twelve chapters of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas written to Maris the Persian,

and the works of Origen, and even further ^A Theodore of Mopsuestia; and thus they returned to their own lands.

9. Not long after, the Acephalus Severus again attempted to disturb the Church, teaching that there is one nature of the Word and of the flesh; and not stopping at this, he also brought forth books, and composed written interpretations, and falsely expounded the Scriptures. However, he too was condemned by Menas, the most holy patriarch of Constantinople, and his doctrines were committed to oblivion, with the assistance of Agapetus of Rome, Peter of Jerusalem, and Ephraim of Antioch, and in addition to them, Soterichus of Cappadocia; and thus again a certain bright victory and a joyful and peaceful condition smiled ^B upon ecclesiastical affairs.

NICETAS CHONIATES. FROM BOOK XII OF THE TREASURY OF ORTHODOX FAITH

Concerning the heresy of the Aphtartodocetae. And this act is joined to the fifth synod.

1. Theodatus, the leader of the Goths, when he was in danger of falling from his rule, being defeated by Belisarius, sent as an envoy to the Emperor Justinian, Agapetus, the high priest of Rome. ^C When he reached Byzantium and came before Justinian, he first discoursed concerning God and the right faith in Him, and he brought into question the elevation of Anthimus to the see of the new Rome, because he was not canonically translated to the city of Constantine from Trapezus, which is the metropolis of the cities situated in the Polemoniac Pontus, and because he had been a participant in the perverse doctrine of Severus. The emperor, however, who had judged Anthimus worthy of the Constantinopolitan see through the zeal of the Empress Theodora, clung to his own act. But as the divine Agapetus still persisted, the emperor frequently ^D threatened him, saying that he could say and do whatever he wished. As he mocked the threatening emperor, and declared that he would even gladly undergo death, and that he would be blessed if he were deemed worthy of such an end, the emperor was astonished at this man's divine boldness, and changing his mind, he ordered an examination to be held concerning the doctrine, and deposed Anthimus from the see, though he had enjoyed it for only one year; and in his place, he substituted Menas, who was from Alexandria in Egypt, having a father from among the most illustrious of this city, and who was skilled in eloquence, especially in divine matters.

2. Menas then, the divine, having obtained the high priesthood, or rather, having been graced by it, convened a particular synod together with Pope Agapetus, and subjected Severus and Eutyches to anathema, and

then Peter, Julian of Halicarnassus, Zopyrus ^A [Zoora], and Anthimus, as being of the same mind as they. While still tarrying in Byzantium, the most holy Agapetus departed this life. Menas, however, having directed the Church for sixteen years, also ended his life, and Eutychius was raised to the episcopal throne of the New Rome, as the blessed Menas had predicted by divine revelation that he would be his successor. During his episcopate, the fifth synod of one hundred and sixty-five holy Fathers was convened, as we have already said, against Origen and his absurd opinions, and those who taught his doctrine, Didymus and Evagrius, who preached the pre-existence of souls, the end of punishments, and the restoration of demons to their former state, and many other things; but also against Theodore of Mopsuestia, who followed the doctrine of Nestorius, with Emperor Justinian present at the synod and favoring the doctrines which the divine Fathers taught in accordance with God.

3. But the time had not yet passed by much, and the demon, the sower of tares, being unable to endure the happy state and tranquility of the Church, attempted to disturb and overturn it with corrupt doctrines as if with engines, persuading some, under the guise of piety, to blaspheme by saying that the flesh ^B which Christ had assumed from the most holy Virgin was incorruptible before the passion. And since the emperor was seduced by this impious doctrine, the great Eutychius, who rebuked the impiety of this proposition, was deposed from his throne and expelled. He was sent into exile to Amaseia, where he pursued an ascetic life. In his place was substituted as patriarch a certain most erudite man, John, the apocrisiarius of Antioch. ^C

4. It is said, moreover, by those who have written the history of Justinian’s reign, that he cherished such a love for Christ as is attributed to no emperor before or after him, except for the greatest among emperors, Constantine; so that he even accomplished many things by force on this account. He treated the Samaritans who would not depart from their own heresy harshly in many ways, and forbade the Hebrews to celebrate their own Passover before the Christians; and he adhered ^D to the heresy of the Aphthartodocetae, not trampling on the dogma, but offended by the meaning of the term, and unable to endure hearing anything of the sort regarding Christ. Eutychius had already been in exile for the twelfth year when Emperor Justinian departed from among men. Patriarch John also ended his life. But after Justin and Tiberius were raised to the royal scepter, Eutychius, having been magnificently received after his return by the emperors themselves and by all those in authority, subjected to anathema those who said that the Lord’s body was incorruptible before the resurrection; and having died, he was laid to rest in the sanctuary of the great holy Apostles near the foundation of the holy table, where the holy relics of Andrew and Timothy and Luke lie.

^A 5. There were also Aphthartodocetae, who were called Julianites and Gaianites, from Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaianus of Alexandria; these, while they agree with Severus in other dogmas, say that it is impossible for a nature to subsist by itself without being considered in some indivisible subject. For how could there be one hypostasis of stone and wood, that is, one indivisible subject? And if the name Christ does not indicate an essence, but something of those things which were made from the union of the two natures; and this is nothing else but the habit of the two natures toward one another, and if the two natures remained after the union, then the union of the two natures with each other was made according to habit alone, as is the case regarding a chorus, a house, a city, and the stones and wood of which a building consists, just as Nestorius also taught.

6. And again: If things that are united become one, those that have not become one are not united, which is manifest. If, therefore, the natures of Christ are both two and one, and the dyad (since it is a doublet) is indicative of division, those things which are divided are not united; therefore, the natures of Christ are not united. If, however, because they are not confused, it is deemed right that there be two natures of Christ, they will be compelled to say that but one nature exists on account of the union. And again: If the dyad is indicative of the first division from the monad, and division is opposed to unity, no dyad, insofar as it is a dyad, can be ^B said to have been united. And therefore, the natures of Christ, if they were two according to their being and not one, would be divided according to this very fact, and not united; and this introduces the doctrine of Nestorius.

7. And Severus proposed such things syllogistically, as if extracting a little from much, that there is one hypostasis, and further, that there is one nature in Christ after the union. But the Julianites and Gaianites, teaching a distinction of natures in Christ after the union, said that the body of the Lord was incorruptible from its very formation; and they said that Christ did indeed undergo passions—I mean hunger, thirst, fatigue, and the rest—but that he did not suffer them in the same way as we do. For we suffer these things naturally out of necessity; but Christ endured all things voluntarily; for he was not subject to the laws of nature.

^C 8. To whom we reply that we do not say that the passions of Christ were involuntary, but that he voluntarily subjected himself to the laws of nature just as we do. For the blessed Athanasius, interpreting the words, "Now is my soul troubled" (John 12:27), says that "now" signifies: when he willed. For he did not name that which is not as if it were present, as though things were happening only in appearance; for all things were done by nature and in truth. The Theologian Gregory again says that Christ gave nature the occasion, when he willed, to perform its own operations. And the admirable Cyril said that ^D he permitted his flesh to follow the laws of nature—

to the body and to the humanity those sufferings that belong to nature, to demonstrate that He had truly put on flesh and became a man in accordance with the Scriptures. If, then, according to the intention of the God-bearing Fathers, He suffered in the same way as we do, and if [He did so] ^A willingly and when He willed it, how can we call the suffering body incorruptible, and not corruptible by nature, just like our own?

9. They respond again by saying: "Just as you say that the body of Christ, calling it incorruptible after the resurrection, is of the same substance as us, so we likewise, calling it incorruptible before the resurrection, profess that it is of the same substance." But we say that, although we confess it to be incorruptible after the resurrection, we do not call it incorruptible by nature, but by grace. If, however, they were to say that it was incorruptible by grace even before the resurrection, we say that this does not comport with what is said about Christ. For before the resurrection He is said to have hungered and thirsted and to have suffered other things; and how could that which suffers these things be incorruptible? But after the resurrection ^B He suffered none of these things.

10. And it is clear that before the resurrection the body was corruptible, but after the resurrection incorruptible. For even if it is said that He ate after the resurrection, He did this by way of divine economy, not as if He were in reality hungry, but in order to show His disciples that it is He Himself who had risen from the dead; just as He is said to have shown them the marks [of the wounds]. And yet, we do not rise again possessing any of the sufferings that [He possessed] before the resurrection; and Christ is the first-fruits of our resurrection from the dead, and yet He Himself was found possessing them. Thus it is evident that this happened by way of divine economy; indeed, Scripture does not say that He hungered, but that He ate. It is necessary, therefore, to observe that they bring forward certain sayings from the Fathers which speak of the body of Christ as incorruptible; ^C as, for example, the blessed Cyril, who says that the flesh of the Word did not undergo corruption. When they produce such statements, one must examine what is signified by them; for the word "corruption" is known to signify two things, and according to some, even three.

NICETAS CHONIATES FROM BOOK XV OF THE TREASURE OF ORTHODOX FAITH

Concerning the Sixth Synod.

1. This synod was established in the time of the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus because of the heresy of the Monothelites, which began under the Emperor Heraclius and lasted until this very Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, who was the great-grandson of the Emperor Heraclius. For when that ^D [emperor, Heraclius,] was ruling the Roman empire and achieving most brilliant victories over the Persians, which [lasted] seven...

years, the Catholicus of the Jacobites met him as he was traveling through those regions. Seeing him, the emperor rebuked him because he did not adhere to the synod of Chalcedon; and he exhorted him to depart from the opinion of the Monophysites, and to proclaim about Christ, as the orthodox believe, two natures united without confusion, that is to say, divinity and humanity, if he wished to be appointed by him as patriarch of Antioch. The Catholicus, captivated by the greatness of the see, promised that he would withdraw from the heresy and affirmed that he would believe in two natures in Christ; but concerning the wills, he said he did not know whether it was necessary to believe in two of them also, and regarding this matter he sought counsel from Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople. For he knew that he taught that there is one will and one operation in Christ. The emperor writes to Sergius regarding this question. He, however, who openly professed the doctrine of the Monothelites, replies to the emperor and says that it is necessary to teach one operation and one will. Later, however, when Heraclius had come into the city, and having questioned Cyrus of Phasis, who had come to him, regarding this doctrine, and having found him to be of the same opinion as Sergius, he himself is infected with the muddy persuasion of this opinion by those hirelings, and not shepherds, and adheres to the heresy of the Monothelites.

^B 2. Having received this into his ears, Sophronius of Jerusalem arrives at the magnificent city of Constantine, and having approached Sergius, he attempts to correct him, saying that to teach one will and one operation in Christ falls back into the same thing as saying there is one nature in Christ, and that thus the heresy of the Monophysites, which the synod of Chalcedon judged to be rejected, is brought in again. And he exhorted Sergius not to cast the Church into struggles again. But Sophronius having departed from Constantinople, Heraclius and Sergius, having with them John who at that time presided over ancient Rome, taught that there was one will of the Word and the flesh, and having sent letters regarding this matter everywhere, they divided the Churches.

^C 3. But after Heraclius had departed from life in the thirty-first year of his reign, and Sergius had ended his life, Pyrrhus accepted that see as his successor, who ^D and confessed and maintained the two operations together with the twin wills. But this holy man, wishing to manifest even more clearly the things that had been set forth, declares regarding them in detail to John of Rome—for so he was called—and to Sergius of Constantinople, but also to Cyrus of Alexandria, rebuking and greatly disparaging the former [group] regarding the doctrine, but praising the latter, John, as is fitting, and crowning him with a thousand praises.

^A is succeeded in the priestly throne, being of the same opinion as Sergius, but the empire is inherited by Constantius, the son of Heraclius. After he had his life cut short by poison one year into his monarchy, the empire passed to Martina and to Heracleonas, whom Heraclius had begotten by her. But since they were hated by all on account of the death of Constantine, they fell from supreme power. Pyrrhus ^B was also cast out of the Church and sentenced to exile in the Western parts, as a participant in the murder of King Constantine along with Heracleonas and Martina. And Constans, the son of Constantine, was raised to the royal throne, while Paulus was installed in the episcopal [throne], favoring the opinions of Sergius and Pyrrhus.

4. During the reign of this king, the philosopher Maximus, who had been a secretary and highly honored by the emperors, renounced all things and betook himself to a monastery in Chrysopolis, laying aside his worldly hair; for he could not bear to see the heresy of the Monothelites being asserted with such audacity, nor could he endure to associate and converse with an emperor and patriarch who were establishing such an unlawful heresy. He then went to the great city of Rome, where he entered into a dialogue with Pyrrhus, who had arrived there after his deposition, and he persuaded the most holy Pope Martin to convene a local synod and to subject to anathema those who taught that there is one will in Christ. This took place, with one hundred and twenty-five bishops gathered together. ^C Returning from Rome with his two disciples named Anastasius, Maximus was brought to account by the senate, and was sent away to be guarded in Thrace; subsequently, his hand and his tongue were cut off, as were those of his disciples. But the most holy Martin was also cast from his throne and condemned to exile, in which he departed this life.

5. Upon the death of Constans, his son Constantine, who was surnamed Pogonatus (the Bearded), assumed the royal dignity. Being orthodox, he convened a synod in Constantinople, desiring to unite the churches. Presiding over it were the vicars of the Roman Pope Agatho, along with Georgius of Constantinople and Theophanes of Antioch. Alexandria, however, did not have a patriarch, nor did Jerusalem, for those cities were held by the Saracens. It was decreed that it must be said and believed that there are two wills and two energies in Christ. ^D The leaders and instigators of the Monothelite heresy were subjected to anathema, even though they had already ceased to live: Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius and Pyrrhus, Paulus and Petrus of Constantinople, Macarius of Antioch, and his disciple Stephanus, as well as the demented Polychronius. Those who struggled most in this synod for the pious dogma were Stephanus, bishop of Heraclea in Pontus—a learned man who carried nearly the entire divine Scripture on his lips—and John of Athens.

From the Dogmatic Epistle of the most pious Emperor Justinian to Zoilus, most holy Patriarch of Alexandria

and nature, has dwelt—as regards the Word of God—with the power of the divinity, miraculously and above what can be expressed, filling all things and dwelling in all of us. Proceeding further, he says again: "Human infirmity is the death, but the divine power is the resurrection," showing that by these two He is recognized, namely, as being among us at once and above us as God. Do you see how this venerable Father demonstrates the powers of the two natures in one hypostasis or one person of Christ our God? And a little further on: "Then, having become man for our sake, He became visible and tangible. And ^B having appeared to exist in divinity and humanity through divine and human operations, He gave it to us to know that He consists of the very things by which He was revealed." Thus, then, the holy Fathers, confessing both these expressions—namely, the one concerning the deity and the other concerning the humanity—hand down from each of them the unmixed and undivided economy of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

NICETAS CHONIATES FROM BOOK XVII OF THE TREASURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

On the heresies of the Armenians.

1. The Armenians endeavor to confirm in this way the one nature and one operation in Christ: If we grant two operations in Christ, two wills must necessarily be established; and if this is conceded, it will necessarily follow that two persons are introduced.

To this, however, our divinely inspired Fathers have replied as follows:

Natural will is nothing other than the power of that which is according to nature, acting as an appetitive force and embracing the properties which essentially belong to nature, from which the ability to will always resides in one who has a will. Yet the ability to will and the act of willing are not the same, just as the ability to speak and the act of speaking are not the same. For that which has the faculty of speaking can always speak, but it does not always ^C speak; for the ability [to speak] is comprised within the definition of nature, but the act of willing is determined by the judgment of the speaker; so that by nature one is always... ^D

^A able to speak, just as one is by nature able to will. But if the ability to will and the manner of willing are not the same, and the latter proceeds from the deliberation of the one who wills, then the incarnate Word, as man, had the ability to will, being moved and shaped by His own divine will. For His will, being in no way opposed to God, was entirely deified. But if it was deified, it is clear that it was deified by its coherence with that which deifies. Now, that which deifies and that which is deified are certainly two, but they are not one and the same in nature; for that which deifies and that which is deified are relative terms, and those things which are relative are by nature such that they involve one another, and each is conceived through the other. Therefore, as man, the Savior had a natural will, shaped and unified by His divine will, and not contrary to it. For that which lacks in potentiality the movement of desire is also devoid of all vital power; and that which does not have vital power by nature has absolutely no soul.

^B To those who say that they do not acknowledge two distinct wills in Christ, but only one, and that divine, for the reason that the flesh was deified.

2. If the divine and human will are one and the same in nature, it is manifest that the nature itself must necessarily be one and the same. For where there is no diversity of natural wills, there will be no variation of substance and nature. But if the wills are different in nature, they differ entirely from one another. Furthermore, if they differ, how is it not necessary to acknowledge their number and to inquire how many there are? For how is it possible for there to be wills and for them not to be numbered? For the fact that the flesh was deified by its union with God does not mean that it is corrupted in its essential entity—insofar as it possesses a soul endowed with reason and mind—any more than iron is corrupted in its own nature by a supreme and perfect mixing and union with fire; rather, it acquires the properties of fire, since by the union it has become fire. Yet at the same time it is heavy by nature and cuts, because it has not suffered the loss of its own nature, nor has it completely lost its natural force, even though it exists with the fire according to one and the same hypostasis, and simultaneously operates both those things which are according to its own nature—I mean cutting—and ^C again those things which proceed from the union, namely, burning; yet the action of cutting is its own, just as it is for the fire, due to the extreme mutual indwelling and communion.

And again regarding the same.

3. If Christ, through the goodwill of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, shared with us in all things that belong to nature for the sake of our salvation, how is it that He did not also partake of the natural will? For the incarnate Word did not partake only of sin, because that is not a thing of nature, but a deviation and slip of the mind moving beyond the ^D

^A sphere of nature; for the natural will and the mental will are distinguished: the natural will is a power belonging to that which exists by nature, being appetitive; but the mental will is a voluntary impulse and inquiry concerning something unknown, and a judgment and disposition concerning what has been decided; and it is not a characteristic of nature, but strictly of the person and hypostasis to whom it belongs, just as the "how to will" and the "how to see" pertain not to nature, but to our own mind. On account of this reasoning, the anthropolater Nestorius impiously taught a union of minds, so that he might confirm one hypostasis by means of the other, and that the mere man might be preserved for him by some mental and voluntary movement toward the Word of God, and that he himself, he says, might accomplish this union. Therefore, in order that the perfection of nature might be accurately defined in the incarnate God and the contrary idea cast away, the natural will was defined in Christ, but the mental will was not properly spoken of, so that neither might a place be given to division, for the sake of avoiding dissension, nor an entrance for fantasy, as if it did not exist. ^B

*Another proposition of the Armenians.*

4. If we concede that there are two wills and two operations in Christ, they will altogether be contrary to one another, the divine will struggling against the human, and the same and one Christ will be found either at variance with himself, or the natures will be divided and exist as separate hypostases, and the doctrine of Nestorius will be proclaimed.

*Response of the orthodox to this.*

5. If you say that they differ in essence, you speak piously; but if you mean that they are opposed, you are liars. For one is the will of the divinity and another is the will of the humanity; yet they are by no means opposed to each other, since the human will follows the divine will and is formed by it. For if anything differs, it is not therefore opposed; for difference is of essence: it is a comparison of those things that are in nature, in the place of their separation, not indeed an opposition. ^C It is inevitable that the incarnate Word naturally possesses the human will, as a pledge for his intelligent and rationally ensouled flesh, if indeed he became perfect man, taking upon himself nothing that is ours, except sin. For having all things that we have, without omission, being everything that is constituted according to the nature of our essence, in each form he was willing and working together with the communion of the other. For those whose essence is different, of them the will and operation are also different; and those whose will and operation are different, of them the essence is also different. Therefore, both in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, from the identity of the will and the operation, we acknowledge the identity of the nature. But in the divine economy of the incarnation, from the difference of the operations and the wills, we also acknowledge the difference of the natures. Furthermore, we say that there are two wills of the natures, ^D not of the persons; nor do those…

^A natures introduce division, but we declare the one and the same natural preservation in the union.

6. They further say this, that at the time of the passion alone, when Christ was representing our nature in himself in a real way and was refusing death as a man, he appeared to have two wills. This is absurd: for if he had them then, he had them also from the beginning, from the time he became man, and he did not conceive them later. But if he did not have them from the beginning, neither did he have them at the time of the passion, but he only feigned the refusal; and according to them, the other things also by which we are saved—for example, the tears, the prayers, the sorrow, the agony, the cross, ^B the death, and the burial—he was merely representing in himself in a real way what is ours, through the natural agony he endured for us, so that he might both deliver us from this and confirm the nature of his own flesh, and render the economy free from all semblance [or phantasy]. Just as he demonstrated the extremity of his human will’s harmony and union with his own and the Father’s will, by preferring this and saying, "Not my will, but thine be done."

Another proposition of the Armenians. 7. If Christ is indivisible, and strictly one operation and will, how can we not also speak of one operation and will in Christ?

Responsio. Nothing of the natural things, in so far as it is indivisible, certainly has division, but it has it for the nature and essence of this indivisible thing. For if the natures do not exist, that which consists of the natures—I mean the composite hypostasis—also vanishes entirely. If, however, we confess the composite hypostasis of Christ, to which everything is referred, it will also be capable of contraries and opposites: for it is mortal and immortal, visible and invisible, finite and infinite, without beginning and having a beginning. A double operation will also ^C be theirs, as is fitting; otherwise, how would each nature be without its operation, or outside its natural operation? And how is it possible that the Word incarnate, who is devoid of natural virtue according to the flesh, should call himself a man, perfect and simply a man? For a man is not without natural operation. Moreover, the composite person in Christ is not strictly called an individual; for it has no relation to that division which proceeds from the most remote genus through the genera subordinated to one another, down to the most specific species, and in it circumscribes its own progress.

8. Therefore, according to the most wise Cyril, the name "Christ" has not the force of a definition. For it is not a species predicated of many different things in number, nor does it denote the substance of any one thing; for that which is indivisible ^D is not led to species or genus or, regarding its essence,

^A nor circumscribed under those things; rather, it is a composite hypostasis, commingling and identifying within itself the natural division of the extremes, and bringing them into one by the union of its own parts. Since we do not recognize the same being as God by nature and man from any other source than from those things which characterize him both divinely and humanly—namely, the innate properties of the divine will and operation, and of the human [will]—by which and through which he signed that which he was and that which he became: working miracles above us as God, yet suffering willingly for us as man. And now, indeed, saying to Philip: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" And: "He who has seen me has seen the Father"; and, "I and the Father are one." But now: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?" ^B

Another objection of the Armenians.

9. That which is moved by another, without an operation of its own, is motionless. The Lord’s flesh, therefore, being moved by the Word united to it, is without operation.

Response and refutation of this objection.

Otherwise, the Lord’s flesh would not differ from the flesh of other saints. For both Moses and David, and whosoever else were capable of the divine operation, were moved by the Spirit of God. As far as they are concerned, the objection would be ridiculous; but since the God of all things became man without change, and as God willed and operated according to his deity, and as man according to his humanity—his human will as it were being deified, and ^C moved and shaped by the divine will—the evangelical words themselves testify to this, as they say: "On the next day Jesus wanted to go into Galilee"; and again: "I want that where I am, they also may be"; and again: "For he did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him"; and elsewhere: "And going out from there, they traveled through Galilee; and he did not want anyone to know him"; and elsewhere: "And his disciples came to him saying: 'Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?'" For the Lord was saying all these things as man, and not as God. Furthermore, that which does not have a natural operation and movement is dead and inanimate; but the Lord’s flesh was endowed with mind and soul. ^D

Another proposition of the Armenians.

10. Just as you say that the concurrence of the two natures in Christ is a composite hypostasis, so it must be said that there is one composite operation.

Response.

If we concede that Christ, considered in two natures, has a single operation, such an operation will either belong to his parts or to the composite itself. And if it belongs to his parts, it shall be divided toward both,

and it will dissolve what is united according to it; but if it belongs to the whole, it will be the same, ^B as one susceptible of opposites, mortal and immortal, created and uncreated, circumscribed and uncircumscribed. And if anyone grants this, Christ will be found to have his own operation, existing and not existing, according to possession and privation. The same must also be said concerning the will. The Armenians say that, just as the operation of an instrument and of that which moves it is one and the same, so also of the divinity and the humanity there is one operation. If, therefore, they introduce an instrument that is co-existing, as are body and soul, it must altogether be said, according to them, that the divine nature is a creature or that the body is uncreated. But if they speak of an instrument of some art, it will lack a soul, and it will not always be moved, but only when it seems so to the one operating. Otherwise, they agree with Apollinarius and Arius, of whom the former used to say that the flesh of Christ was without a soul, but Apollinarius used to say it was without a mind.

11. If the Armenians say that even after the incarnation the Son is one, and is one of the Holy Trinity, and that the Holy Trinity has a single will and a single operation, and that thence Christ had a single operation and a single will, it must be answered thus: The Father does not will as Father, but as God; and since the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, according to this the three-hypostasized Deity has one will and one operation; but the Son, ^C communicating also with us humans through the assumption of flesh, had also a twofold will and operation: the one as being consubstantial with God and Father, the other as being consubstantial with us. Yet we do not say that the operations are separated, nor that the natures operate separately, but that each operates what is its own, in unity with the communion of the other. For he did not perform human things humanly, for he was not a mere man; nor divine things only according to God, for he was not only God. But the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures. And otherwise: If we speak of one will in Christ as in the Holy Trinity, there will be one and the same will of the Father, and of the Word, and of the flesh. To these things which we have said, perhaps those who wish to use reasoning will add this: There is no nature without a hypostasis or person; if, therefore, they say, we speak of two natures in Christ, we also introduce two hypostases, and thus we will be of the same mind as Nestorius, who taught that there are two hypostases in Christ.

It must be answered to this: ^D

12. As the pious Church, rejecting the heresy of Sabellius, confesses three hypostases and one nature of the most holy Trinity, and, spurning the division of Arius into three disparate hypostases, proclaims one nature of the three-hypostasized Deity, so also does it contend against the Monophysites, who assert that there is one nature in Christ and one hypostasis. Which...

^A they defend by asserting that there is no nature without a hypostasis, or rather, without a person. For the human nature that is in Christ is not hypostasyless, since it is hypostasized by the Word. It is necessary to present these arguments to address the syllogisms put forward by the Armenians. Just as the two generations of Christ—that is, the eternal generation from the Father according to His divinity, and the generation at the end of time from the Virgin according to His humanity—being realized in the one hypostasis of the Word of God, did not cause an addition of hypostasis, so neither did the addition of a person occur from the two natures that were united by hypostasis. Therefore, against those who say that there is no nature without a hypostasis, it must be said that there is also no parturition without a person. It should be known that those who opine that there is one nature in Christ either opine that the divinity was transformed into flesh ^B or that the flesh became consubstantial with the divinity—things which are impossible and absurd. If neither of these is the case, there is certainly one nature in Christ that is distinct from the other.

13. Furthermore, if they teach that there is a correspondence between the number of natures and personalities, and vice versa, then they must introduce three natures in the Holy Trinity, since it consists of three persons; or, conversely, they would have to claim a single hypostasis, since this nature is one. It must also be known that the Jacobites and the Armenians confess two natures in Christ before the union, but after the union they confound both the divine and the human into one composite nature, and for this reason they call it one nature. Hence, in defense of themselves, when responding to those who piously state that there are two natures in Christ, they argue that there is no nature without a hypostasis or person. They claim that those who state there are two natures in Christ also introduce two hypostases, like Nestorius, and that they do not find three persons or three hypostases in the Holy Trinity, but four. ^C And for this reason they anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, as if it had decreed two hypostases in Christ—for that is how they refer to them according to their own doctrine. Furthermore, they use Saint Cyril as an accomplice to their own heresy, because he said "one enfleshed nature of the Word," not understanding this expression in the sense that he meant it, but rather they contend that this nature is that which they themselves call one, confounded after the union, or rather, transformed into divinity.

14. Again, these same people, interpreting the voice of the evangelist John piously—which says, *And the Word became flesh*—derive from it the saying of the holy Athanasius, which speaks thus: "The Word became flesh, in order that the flesh should also become Word." They also cite Gregory the Theologian, who says: "I dare to say that He made one who is like God, anointing [Him] who is the Word;" and in addition to this, Gregory of Nyssa, who argues thus: "Just as a drop of vinegar cast into the vastness of the sea no longer retains the properties of the vinegar, but has been changed and mingled into the properties of the sea’s waters; ^D so indeed that most holy body, mingled with the divinity

no longer exists within the properties of the flesh. They argue thus: "Since the flesh has become the Word and divinized, having been mingled with the Word and changed, how is it possible to speak of two natures, and not one, and that the nature of the divinity?"

15. To this it must be answered that the created and circumscribed nature, even after the union, has remained in its own natural properties, not having been entirely changed into the uncreated, uncircumscribed, and co-eternal with the Father; but through the interpenetration ^A of the natures into one another, the flesh has been deified, while we say that God became man. For if we do not concede this, the growth, swaddling, touching, hunger, thirst, toil, agony, spittle, fixing upon the cross, burial, and death—according to them—would be of the nature of the Word, and ^B not of the human nature in Christ. That this is also the opinion of the Fathers, whose arguments they bring forward, the rest of these writings bear witness, teaching that the natures in Christ have not been confused, nor has the flesh been changed into divinity. But also, regarding Christ saying to the disciples about Lazarus: "He is dead, and I rejoice for your sake that I was not there." Whose is the saying to be understood, "I was not there"? The divinity's? And how is He who is everywhere present and above all things circumscribed by a place? But if it is the flesh's, why are there not two natures ^C in Christ? And the tear shed for Lazarus was also entirely the flesh's, and not the divinity's; just as inquiring, "Where have you laid him?" is also human-befitting.

16. If they should also add this, that if Christ had two unconfused natures, human and divine, we therefore worship the creature, since we adore as a nature what is created; or if not this, then one and the same Christ would be worshiped and not worshiped; it must be answered thus: We worship the Son of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, incorporeal before the incarnation, but now the same ^D enfleshed and having become man while also being God. And just as simple wood is not inaccessible to touch, but having come into contact with fire, it becomes inaccessible, not of itself, but because of the fire joined to it—and it is not the nature of the wood that is inaccessible, but the burning coal, that is, the ignited wood—so also the flesh, according to its own nature, is not worshipable, but is worshiped in the incarnated Word. And we do not say that we worship bare flesh, but the flesh of God, that is, the incarnated God. These things are offered as if at hand and in summary; but someone with opportunity could gather together even more examples from the Holy Scriptures, destroying the heresies of the Armenians and refuting their contradictions.

NICETAE CHONIATAE EX LIBRO XX THESAURI ORTHODOXAE FIDEI

ON THE SUPERSTITION OF THE HAGARENES

^A 1. The religion of the Ishmaelites, which misleads the nations even to this day, is a kind of precursor to the Antichrist. They derive their lineage from Ishmael, whom Hagar bore to Abraham; for this reason they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, as if they were destitute of Sarah, because Hagar said to the angel that she had been sent away destitute by Sarah. Now these people, having been addicted to the worship of idols and having worshipped the morning star, Venus, which they call in their own language Chamar, which signifies "great," were without doubt pagans up to the times of Heraclius. But when Heraclius was reigning, and thereafter, there arose among them a false prophet named Mohammed, who, associating with Jews and soon with Christian Arians and Nestorians, drawing from every source—from the Jews the unity of God, from the Arians the notion that the Word and Spirit are creatures, and from the Nestorians anthropolatry—and having perused the Old and New Testaments, and having held converse with a certain Arian monk, he fashioned a heresy ^B of his own. And under the pretext of piety, having subjected the people to himself, he trumpeted that a scripture had been sent down to him from the heavens by God; and having inscribed in that book certain chapters worthy of laughter, he handed down a religious cult to his followers.

2. He says that there is one God, the creator of all things, who neither was begotten nor has begotten. He says that Christ is the son of God, and His spirit, but a created thing and a servant; and that He was born of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron, without seed. For the Word, he says, of God and the Spirit entered into Mary, and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and a servant of God. The Jews, having acted lawlessly, desired to crucify Him, and having seized Him, they crucified only His shadow; for God, who loved Him, took Him up into heaven. He also says this: that when Christ had been taken up into the heavens, God questioned Him, saying, "O Jesus, did you say this word, that I am the son of God and God?" He answered, he says, "Jesus—"

"Mercy upon me, Lord; you know that I did not say this, nor am I so arrogant as to be your servant; but the transgressors, the people, wrote that I said this word, and they have lied against me, and they are led astray." And God, he says, answered him: "I know that you did not ^A speak this word." And he boasts that many other such monstrous and ridiculous things in that book were sent down to him by God.

3. We asked, "And who is the witness that it was to him that God gave the scripture? Or which of the prophets predicted that such a prophet would arise?" And when we further urged that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people, with God appearing in a cloud, fire, thick darkness, and a storm, and that all the prophets from Moses onward foretold the arrival of Christ, namely that God and the Son of God would come, incarnate, and would be crucified, die, and rise again, and that He is the judge of the living and the dead; and then added, "Why did your prophet not come in this manner, with others bearing witness to him? Or why ^B did God not give this scripture of yours to Mohammed in the sight of all of you, as He gave the Law to Moses with all the people watching and the mountain smoking, so that you too might have some foundation?" The Agarenes answer that God does whatever He wishes. When we reply that we are well aware of that, but ask how the scripture came to their prophet, they answer that the scripture was handed down to him from above while he was sleeping. "But this is ridiculous," we reply, "and because he received the scripture while asleep and had no understanding of the matter, the saying of the common proverb was fulfilled in him." And when we asked them again, "Why, when he commanded you in your scripture to do or allow nothing without witnesses, did you not say to him, 'Do you first demonstrate through witnesses that you are a prophet and have come from God, and what scripture ^C testifies concerning you?'" they fall silent, ashamed. To whom we reasonably say: "Since it is not permitted to marry a wife without witnesses, nor to trade, nor to buy, nor do you yourselves accept a donkey or property that is without witnesses, but you acquire even wives, and property, and donkeys, and other things through witnesses, it is surely wrong that you hold only your faith and your scripture without witnesses; for the one who handed this to you has no confirmation from anywhere; nor did any witness go before him, but Mohammed received the book while sleeping, and neither he nor any ^D witness for him is known."

4. They call us "associators," because, they say, we introduce a companion to God when we say that Christ is the Son of God and God. To these we say, that this is what the Scripture and the prophets have handed down: and you yourselves, as you assert, accept the prophets. If, therefore, we speak wrongly in calling Christ the Son of God, then they taught and handed this down to us wrongly. And some of them say that it is because we Christians, by allegorizing the prophets, [have...]

introduced such doctrines. Others say: The Hebrews, your enemies, deceived you by writing such things as if they were prophetic, so that we too might be deceived along with you. We say to them in turn: Since you call Christ the Word of God and His spirit, why do you reproach us as if we were associating [others with God]? For the Word and the Spirit cannot be separated from Him to whom they naturally belong. If, therefore, His Word is in God, the Word is also God. But if, as you think, the Word is outside of God, then God certainly lacks a spirit. Therefore, while you avoid associating anyone with God, you mutilate Him. It is better to attribute a companion to Him than to diminish Him and to introduce something like a stone or wood or any other senseless thing. You lie, therefore, when you call us associates; we, on the contrary, speak the truth when we call you mutilators of God.

^B 5. They slander us as idolaters for worshipping the Cross and the image of Christ and the saints, which they themselves abhor. We, however, respond to them: Why then do you prostrate yourselves against a stone in your Gabatha, and why do you kiss this stone so willingly? Some of them say that upon this stone Abraham had intercourse with Agar; others say that he tied his camel to it when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. We answer them: Since the Scripture says that the mountain was wooded, and that Abraham placed the wood he had split for the burnt offering upon Isaac, and that he left the donkey behind with the servants, where do you get these fables? For there are neither forest trees in your place, nor is there a path for a donkey; thus, they are ashamed. Nevertheless, they say it is the stone of Abraham, and that upon it he had intercourse with a woman, and that he tied his camel to it. Then, are you not ashamed, but do you instead judge us for worshipping the Cross of Christ and His image, through which the power of demons and the deceit of the devil are destroyed? But this stone, which they speak of, is the head of Venus, whom they worship and whom they call Chamar; from which stone, even to this day, a shadow of her is seen by those who examine it closely, represented by plastic work.

^C 6. Therefore, this Mohamed, as has been said, having composed many insults, placed headings upon each of these, as for instance the chapter concerning women. In this so-called chapter concerning women, he legislates that one may openly take four wives, and concubines—if one is able, a thousand, or however many his hand might acquire, subject to the four wives. And if he wishes to dismiss one and take another whom he might desire, he legislated for the sake of such a reason. He had a companion in his ministry named Zeid; this man had a beautiful wife with whom he [Mohamed] fell in love. While they were sitting, therefore, he said to him: "Zeid, God has commanded me to take the wife whom you have..."

^A divorced." And he divorced her. After a few days, however, Mohamed said again: "God has commanded me to take the wife whom you divorced to be my own." He replied: "You are the Envoy; whatever God has commanded you, do." Having then taken her and committed adultery with her, he laid down such a law: namely, that anyone who wishes may divorce his wife; but if, after the divorce, she should wish to return to her husband, let some other man marry her; for it is not permitted for her to be taken back by the previous husband unless she has first been married to another. And if a brother should divorce her, let his brother marry her if he wishes. In the same chapter he gives this advice as well: "Till the land which God has given you, and take pleasure in it, and act in this or that way." For I do not wish to speak of the other base things, as he does. ^B

7. Again, another chapter is inscribed concerning the camel of God; in which he said that there existed from God a female camel which drank up an entire river, and passed between two mountains, lest it be caught. For there were, he says, people in that place, and on the first day they drank the water, while on the next day the camel did; and as the water she drank nourished the people, she provided milk instead of water. But those wicked men arose and killed the camel. It had a foal, a small camel, which, when its mother was killed, raised its voice to God, and He took it to Himself. We therefore say to the Hagarenes: "Whence did this camel come?" They say: "From God." We proceed to ask: "Did it unite with another camel?" They deny it. "How then," we ask, "did it give birth?" For we see this camel of yours to be without father, without mother, without genealogy. But having given birth, she suffered an evil fate, nor does it appear who did violence to her. ^C But the small camel was taken away. Therefore, your prophet, with whom, as you say, God spoke, why did he not learn where the small camel is grazing, and who are they that milk it and are nourished by its milk? Or did it perhaps encounter the same evil as its mother and was killed? Or did it enter into paradise as your forerunner, from which you babble that a river of milk will flow for you? For you say that there are three rivers in your chapter which is inscribed "on paradise," flowing with water, wine, and milk. If, therefore, your forerunner camel is outside of paradise, it has perished from hunger and thirst, or others are enjoying its milk. And your prophet boasts in vain of conversing with God, since the mystery of the camel was not revealed to him. But if by chance it is in paradise, ^D it again drinks the water, and you are parched by lack of water in the midst of the delights of paradise, and you desire to drink water from a source that does not flow past; for the camel drinks it all. Therefore, drinking wine, you will inflame your veins, and you will indulge in drunkenness and sleep; and laboring under a heavy head, and suffering from a hangover after sleep from the wine, you will forget the delights of paradise. Why, therefore, did your prophet not think beforehand, lest anything of this sort happen in the delights of paradise,

nor was he concerned about the camel, where it might be staying? Nor did you, finally, ask him so that he might relate to you something regarding the fable of the three rivers? But we, without any circumlocution, proclaim to you that your famous camel has run on ahead to the grasses of hell, where you also are going to dwell, as brute beasts. There indeed is outer darkness, ^A unceasing punishment, shrieking fire, a sleepless worm, and tartarean demons.

8. In the same chapter regarding paradise, Mohammet says that he himself is the gatekeeper of paradise, and that Moses will be there with the Israelites; but that the transgressors of the law will be handed over to the punishment of fire. Christians, likewise, as those who have called Christ the Son of God and God, and who have asserted that He was incarnate and crucified (for he himself says that only a shadow of Him was crucified by the Jews), will be delivered to the Gehenna of fire. Then he says that he was called by God, and that as a most religious man and one who has existed as the cause of piety for his whole nation, he has been honored with praise; and for this reason he has been made the gatekeeper of paradise, and sent to open it; and that seventy thousand men will enter there with him without hindrance and without any contradiction or judgment. Regarding the rest, he says that they will be judged; and the just indeed will without doubt enjoy the delights; but those ^B who are found to be sinners will wear labels fixed to their necks, nonetheless will enter paradise, and will be called the freedmen of God and of Mohammet; and that women will be with them without menstruation, serving them and adorning their hair. And he said that the Samaritans also would enter paradise, not to enjoy it, but to carry out the refuse and dung of paradise, lest by chance paradise should stink. And each one, just as he was rich or poor in this life, so will he be there. Lastly, he says that the Jews and the Christians will be like wood destined for fire, which will be cast into it.

9. Again, another writing is inscribed regarding the table, that Christ asked for a table from God after he had persuaded Him that he had not usurped for himself the name of Son of God. This God provided to him, saying: I have given you a perpetual table, that you may enjoy it. Furthermore, there is another chapter about the heifer, in which he says certain words worthy of laughter, which, lest I be prolix, I judge should be omitted. ^C And although he established for his own people the law of circumcision, he commanded neither the Sabbath nor baptism. Likewise, teaching them to eat some things forbidden by the old law and to abstain from others, this impostor thoroughly forbade the drinking of wine. Moreover, he decreed the dogma that God is the cause of every good and every evil; and he declared with prodigious impiety that whatever happens to us from the guile of the malignant enemy is from God. And if thieves, poisoners, and whoever is caught and put to death for forbidden deeds meet one's eyes, he says, so God had written that it should happen, and thus He wished them to die; by which saying he established the power of fortune and fate; and many other trifles; by which the wretched Hagarenes, deceived, as blasphemous and impious are excluded from eternal joys.

^A This heresy of the Ishmaelites arose in the time of the Emperor Heraclius, to whom from the foundation of the world 6145 years had passed.

10. But that we may add to what has been said, that Mohammed says nothing true, let us recount these things excerpted from his own book. Making mention of Christ and the Gospel, he says, as if from the person of God: "We have sent the last of all the prophets, Jesus, the son of Mary, to validate what was before him, and we sent down to him the Gospel, in which there is guidance," he says, "and justice, according to the virtue of the law preceding it." If, therefore, all these things were granted to Jesus and his Gospel, what did you leave for yourself, O Mohammed, to contribute to men? Nothing else, surely, than error and the perversion of true dogmas. Again, he says as if from the person of God: "When we willed to destroy a region, we commanded the inhabitants therein that they should live luxuriously; and thus the sentence concerning their destruction and the decree brought upon them became just; and we punished them with losses, and destroyed many." But God, I say, does not delight in luxury nor in the destruction of men, but rather the devil, who commands one to live luxuriously. ^B

11. He says the sun and moon ride horses, the wretch not knowing that these, being inanimate, cannot ride. And how could horses, endowed with corruptible flesh, sustain the role of fiery chariots? For those fiery horses of Elijah were not such by nature, but merely displayed the outward appearance of horses. He says that man was created from a leech. ^C He encourages them to eat all animals, except the pig. "Eat," he says, "of those things which are on the earth; for they are clean and good, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan"—calling God "Satan," who designated what is clean and what is unclean. And if he who brought the old law is Satan, O you dotard, why do you name him God elsewhere? Prescribing a law concerning the fast, he says: "The night of the fast is sufficient for you for the union of your wives; for they are a covering for you. For God knew that you would defraud your own souls in the fast, and he became indulgent to you. Consort with them for comfort, and eat in the evening and drink, until the black of the night appears white during the day." What kind of fast is this, O you impure and flagitious man, or what law of God allows one to feast and indulge in lust for the whole night? Then, speaking to them about temperance, he says: "Your wives are your field; enter into your field when you wish, and spare your souls"—that is, fulfill every desire of your souls—"and use your wives in both ways [or on both sides]." What, I pray, could be more lascivious and detestable than these words? ^D

12. Inciting his followers to war against us,

he says: "Kill them wherever you may encounter them." Nor does he only say this, but he also declares that a reward is laid up by God for those who defile themselves with the blood of Christians. He also commands that the fifth part of the captives and other spoils be offered to God and to the prophet Muhammad. He further ^A exhorts [his followers] to be reconciled to the Christians if they embrace the religion of the Saracens, and to receive them in place of brothers, passing from the height of cruelty to the highest point of affection. But this is also a trick, so that the simpler folk might renounce the sacred covenants of the Christians, enticed by the prerogative of brotherhood. Furthermore, he warns his own, saying: "Do not be defenders of Jews and Christians; for whoever among you protects them, that person is one of them." And again, lamenting Christians and Jews, he says: "Woe to you, followers of the Scriptures! Nothing will come of you so long as you follow the Law and the Gospel." And while saying these things against the Christians, he does nothing new, since he hates them with all his might; but why, regarding the Jews, whose circumcision he embraces and whose legal [observances] he commands to be kept in many things, does he utter such terrible threats in every sermon? ^B

13. Again, trying to secure trust for himself, he brings in God bearing witness about him, swearing and saying: "By the setting star, your companion has not wandered, nor has he transgressed, nor did he speak from his own will." He also makes Jesus, the Son of Mary, prophesy about him, saying: "I am the messenger of God to you, confirming what was before me in the Law, and announcing a messenger coming after me, whose name is Muhammad." But where did Christ prophesy this, or in what Scripture did He say it? It is in none at all. Therefore, Muhammad is a false speaker and an impostor, dragging toward himself testimonies of Christ which no one among Christians knows. The Saracens say that for the Virgin to give birth is the same as for Adam to be fashioned from the dust. But we say that Christ was born of a Virgin because, being God, He effected a miraculous ^C passage from her; whereas Adam, being a creature of God and not deriving his birth from a preceding series, was formed from clay. There is, therefore, a great difference between the birth of God and the formation of a man.

14. The Saracens say that Muhammad is the one indicated in Daniel as the stone hewn from the mountain without hands. But let them hear from us: what participation has Daniel with Muhammad, that he should say such things about him who slanders Moses and the Law? What idol did Muhammad strike and crush, as Christ did to polytheism, who also became a great mountain and filled the whole earth? They ask again, what did the Son of God being incarnate profit us? And we respond that the mystery ^D of the Trinity was thus revealed, known, and believed by the whole world; and the deception of the Greek...

polytheism has vanished, and divination, and sorcery, and devilish witchcraft have been cast aside. ^A Baptism, whereby we obtain adoption, and redemption, and the distribution of spiritual gifts, have been laid open to all who believe; the Gospel has been spread from the rising of the sun to its setting; the middle wall of partition of the ancient enmity between God and men has been broken down, God having been reconciled to us through the intercession of His own Son; and the kingdom of heaven has been opened, and many other gifts have been granted to men, which we omit to mention in detail.

15. They say also: Whether it was willingly or unwillingly that Christ was crucified; if willingly, the crucifiers are innocent; but if unwillingly, this imputes infirmity and powerlessness to Him. ^B We answer, therefore, that Christ was crucified willingly, and yet the crucifiers are worthy of the ultimate condemnation. That He suffered of His own accord, He Himself showed before the passion, saying: I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again; and no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. But also, when the Jews frequently wished to lay hands upon Him, they did not, because the preordained time of His passion had not yet come. However, He willed to suffer that He might destroy death and pave the way for the resurrection from the dead. Why then are the crucifiers guilty? Because, although reading the law and the prophets, which foretold the time of His advent, they not only did not recognize Him as the one who had come for the common salvation, but they even destroyed the author of many blessings by lifting Him up on the cross.

16. They say again: If everyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed, and Christ was also hung on a tree, then He too is cursed. ^C And how shall a blessing be given from a cursed one? But they hear from us that, whereas He was God, He became man for our sake, and He took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses, and tasted death, that He might deliver us from both death and the curse. For the sentence, In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die, and, Cursed is the ground in your labors, is the penalty of our human race. Thus also Christ was called a curse, and yet He redeemed us from the curse of the law. And just as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive. One may also demonstrate this by an example. ^D In the desert, serpents were biting the Hebrews; but Moses, having made a bronze image of a serpent, which had once been called cursed, hung it on wood, and said: Whoever is bitten by a serpent, let him look to this serpent, and he shall be saved. And this serpent was a figure of Christ.

17. Moreover, they say: You Christians honor the cross just as you honor Christ Himself. But we say that this is a manifest calumny. For Christ is honored by us as God, but the

^A cross is a partaker of divine grace on account of Him who deigned to be crucified upon it; through which it has also wrought and daily works many prodigies. For this reason the cross is to be honored by us, not insofar as it is wood, but because it served the passion of Christ. For you, too, when you travel to Mecca and perform there the sacred rites according to your pleasure, by no means offer worship to the stones and walls, but to Him who is worshipped in the building there. We also hear that a certain man who touched the legal ark was punished; yet that too was constructed of wood, but on account of the grace of the things contained in it, God had imparted to it much sanctity.

18. Furthermore, they reproach us with the transgression of the commandments of Christ, because we render evil for evil, and are anxious about food and clothing. ^B We respond, therefore, that we by no means transgress the law of Christ when we take vengeance upon our enemies, and especially upon infidels; rather, we fulfill what is just. For the law exhorts us to forgive those who offend against us personally, but to bring aid to those who are treated unjustly. God Himself also did this, when He drowned Pharaoh, the enemy of the Hebrews. And indeed David says, "I shall wash [my hands] in the blood of the sinner." And elsewhere he sings: "If I have repaid those who repay me with evils, may I fall from my enemies empty." That was an indication ^C and fervor of zeal against those who take delight in acts harmful to the commonwealth; this, however, is indulgence toward those who are suppliant to him. One may also explain this in another way. For he who initiates war and injustice transgresses the law and sets aside nature; he, however, who arms himself against such a person brings aid to nature, and as far as possible is made like to God, who says: "Rescue the poor and needy; deliver them from the hand of the sinner." As for the saying, "Be not anxious about food and clothing," this was commanded to the apostles, so that they might be condemned in neither great ^D nor small matters. "For if the salt," He says, "loses its flavor, with what will it be salted?" However, He does not forbid use, but superfluity. Many Christians, both of old and not a few today, have been and are observers of these high and great commandments.

NICETAS CHONIATES ORDER OBSERVED FOR THOSE WHO CONVERT FROM THE SARACENS TO OUR PURE AND TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Primum is who approaches the right faith fasts for two weeks, and is taught the prayer delivered to us by our Lord Jesus Christ in the divine and holy gospels, and the sacred symbol of the faith. ^A Then the priest, putting on his priestly stole, brings him into the baptistery, with other believers present who wish to attend; and setting him before the holy font with his head uncovered, he says to him: "You, who from the Saracens today approach the faith of the Christians, do you do so not by any force or necessity, nor by deceit or dissimulation, but with your whole soul and with a pure and sincere heart, loving Christ and His faith?" ^B And when he has consented and says the same words, either by himself or through an interpreter if he does not know how to speak Greek, or through his sponsor if he is a child, the priest again recites the following; and again the response is made in the same manner. And when the whole anathema is completed, the deacon says, "Let us beseech the Lord," and the people, "Lord, have mercy," and what follows. After the *Amen*, he marks him with the sign of the cross and dismisses him; and on the following day he is numbered among the catechumens. Pray, you catechumens; and let all the believers pray in their hearts for them, saying, "Lord, have mercy." ^C Pray, those who are to be enlightened: let all we believers earnestly beseech [the Lord] for them, so that the Lord may deign to make them, as they have been initiated into the death of Christ, fellow-risers with Him, and inheritors of His kingdom, and recipients of His mysteries, and might unite and number them with those being saved in His holy Church. Save and raise them by Thy grace.

^A

The Order observed for those coming from the Saracens to the faith of the Christians

The anathema of the Saracens is of this sort: "I, such a one, coming today from the Saracens to the faith of the Christians, not by any force or necessity..." ^B And to each individual point the one who is approaching responds. Then the priest interrogates him: "Dost thou believe in the holy and coessential Trinity?" And he answers: "I believe." Then, with the person who is approaching bowing his head, the priest makes a prayer, in these words: "O God our Savior, who willest all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, receive this Thy servant, who has scarcely at length repented from error and has desired to come to the knowledge of the truth. For Thou hast said, O Lord: 'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, one shepherd.' Shepherd him, therefore, in Thy glory unto the knowledge of the truth, according to the exposition of Thy holy and glorious apostles; and vouchsafe him the seal of the holy myron and the partaking of Thy precious blood; and show him a perfect servant of Thine, that he may also be numbered with Thy fold, to the glory and praise of Thy majesty. For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen." And he anoints him with myron, just as with the newly illuminated [that is, the baptized], and adds the same formula of words over him. After these things he prays again, in these words: "O Lord our God, who hast deigned to render this Thy servant perfect through the orthodox faith in Thee, and the seal of Thy holy myron: do Thou, O Lord of all, preserve in him the true faith in Thee, increasing him in righteousness, and adorning him with all the gifts of Thy grace." And thus then he communicates, and receives the instruction not to eat meat during those seven days, nor to wash his face; but, just as those who are being baptized, so he continues: and on the eighth day he washes himself. ^C

Anoint first with holy oil; then baptize with water; and finally seal with myron; so that the anointing of oil may be a participation in the Holy Spirit; the water, a sign of death; and the myron, the seal of the covenant. But if there be neither oil nor myron, water suffices both for anointing and for sealing, and for the confession of the death—the death, I say, already undergone by Christ, and [to be undergone] with Him by us. Before Baptism, however, let him who is coming to be baptized fast; for the Lord Himself was first baptized by John and, having been led away into the desert, afterwards fasted. The rationale of this institution is rendered also in the *Questions and Answers to the Orthodox*, bearing the name of Justin, chapter [137]; in the *Apology* of Justin, however, the exposition of baptism is simpler, without any mention of oil or ointment, [chapter] 73. Concerning which mystery [see] Paul, 1 Corinthians 1; and our Clement, [page] 249; in whom also the sealing of the ears by fire is mentioned, [page] 316, 49. The devil also in his own mysteries...

^A not by necessity, nor by deceit or hypocrisy, but with my whole soul, and a pure and guileless heart, loving Christ and His faith, I renounce the whole religion of the Saracens, and I anathematize Moamed, who is also called Muchumet, whom the Saracens honor as a messenger of God and a prophet. I anathematize Alim, the son-in-law of Moamed, and Chasanen and Chusenen, his sons; and Apupiker, who is also called Cubiker; and Umar, and Talchar, and Apupacren the Paducen; and Mevie, and Zupeer, and Adellan, and Zeit, and Izit, and Saitem, and Uthman, and all the rest of the fellow-mystics, abettors, and successors of Moamed. I anathematize Zadoze and Aise and Zetheinep and Omkelthim, the first and most wicked of the wives of Moamed, and Phatman his daughter. I anathematize him who is called the Curan, that is, the whole ^B book or scripture of Moamed, which he falsely claims was brought down to him from heaven by the archangel Gabriel; and all his doctrine, and [his] legal institutions, and apocryphal narrations, and mysteries, and traditions, and his blasphemies. I anathematize the paradise of Moamed, in which he says there are four rivers—of water that cannot be muddied, of milk that does not change its native sweetness, of pleasant wine, and of strained honey—and that on that coming day, which he limits to five hundred thousand years, the Saracens will live in it with their own women, living carnally and passionately, and beneath the shade of certain trees which are called Sedre and Talech, eating the flesh of birds which they crave ^C and every kind of autumn fruit; and drinking from the fountain of Camphora and from the fountain of Zingiber, named Salsabila; and being offered wine whose mixture is drawn from the fountain of Thesmima; and that their statures will touch the heaven in their height, both of men and women alike; that their members [genitalia] will be forty cubits [in length]; and that they will have intercourse without the weariness of satiety in the presence of God, because (he says) "God is not ashamed." I anathematize those who, by the name of Moamed, ^D follow these rites, as Tertullian writes in his book *De praescriptione haereticorum*, where, among other things concerning the devil, he says: "He himself also baptizes some, those who believe and are his faithful; and thus he initiates them even unto Mithra; he marks his soldiers there on the forehead; he celebrates the oblation of bread, and induces an image of the resurrection."

^A I anathematize those so-called angels of Muhammad, Aroth and Maroth, and Tzapha and Marua, whom he prodigiously fabricates as being among those venerated by God. In addition to these, I anathematize those also who are fabulously proclaimed by him as prophets and apostles, namely Chud and Tzalet or Salech, and Synaip and Hedres, and Dualkiphil and Locman. I anathematize all the testimonies of Muhammad, as many as he cites from the Old Testament Scripture, perverting and adulterating it, and spreading numberless lies about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Elijah, Jonah, and Zachariah the father of John. I also anathematize all the things which, with barbarous and ignorant physiology, he fabricates regarding the other creatures of God, and regarding the sun and the moon, saying that they are horsemen. ^B I anathematize that apocryphal doctrine and promise of Muhammad held among the Saracens, which says that he will be the key-bearer of paradise, and will introduce into it seventy thousand righteous Saracens; but that the sinners will be judged by God, and with labels hung upon their necks, they too will likewise enter paradise and be called freedmen of Muhammad. I anathematize the laws laid down by Muhammad concerning marriages and the dissolution of marriages, and the purification of women after adultery, and the number of wives and concubines, and all his impure teachings concerning such matters. I anathematize the blasphemy of Muhammad which says that God leads astray whom He wills, and guides to good whom He wills; and that if God had willed it, men would not have fought among themselves, but that He Himself does whatever He wills, and that He Himself is the author of every good and every evil alike, and that fortune and fate prevail in all things. I anathematize the nonsense of Muhammad which says ^C that the Lord and our God Jesus Christ was born of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron, without seed, from the Word of God and the Spirit; and that while still an infant, He fashioned birds from clay, and by breathing upon them made them living creatures; and that He healed the blind and raised the dead; and that at the request of the apostles He asked God and brought down a table from heaven and fed them; and that He was neither crucified nor died in reality as a man, but that He suffered these things from the Hebrews only in appearance. And that when questioned by God as to whether He had called Himself God in the world, He denied it, saying: "Thou knowest all things, and Thou knowest that I have not called myself God or Thy Son, for I am Thy servant, and I am not so proud as to wish to be called this." I anathematize the teaching of Muhammad which says that Christ is not the Son of God, ^D but an apostle and prophet, since (he says) God has no partner in communion, and all who call Christ His partner in communion will be punished in the gehenna of fire. I anathematize the fable of Muhammad in which he says that a house of prayer was built for God by Abraham and Ishmael in Bacche or Make or Makech, which he names an object of adoration of this kind.

^B And I anathematize that same house of prayer in Make, in the middle of which they say there lies a great stone, which has upon itself the likeness of Venus; and that this stone is honored as if Abraham had lain upon it with Hagar, or had tied his camel to it when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. Those who go there to pray extend one of their hands toward the stone, while holding their own ear with the other, and thus turn themselves around in a circle until they fall down, blinded by vertigo. I also anathematize the very place of Meke, and all its surroundings, and the seven stones which are cast there by the Saracens against the Christians, and all their prayer, worship, and ceremonial rites. I anathematize the teaching of Muhammad concerning the female camel, which he says was sacred to God and was killed by the men of that time, and that on this account God took vengeance on them. I anathematize those who worship the morning star, that is, Lucifer and Venus, which they call Chabar in the Arabian language, that is to say, "the Great." I anathematize all the institutions of Muhammad in which, uttering reproaches against Christians, he calls them deniers, and communicants, and associates, and incites the Saracens to slaughter them cruelly, calling the war against the Christians "the way of God," and calling the Saracens who die in such a war "sons of God" and "worthy of paradise." I anathematize the wicked and impure institution ^C of Muhammad concerning prayers, in which he also adds this: that if they do not find water at hand, they should take fine earth and rub their hands and faces with it. I anathematize the teaching of Muhammad concerning the formation of man, in which he says that man was fashioned from earth and a drop, and that when man was fashioned, all the other angels by God's command worshiped him, but that Belial alone did not obey so as to worship him. And besides all these things, I anathematize the god of Muhammad, of whom he says that he is one solid God, who neither has begotten nor was begotten, nor has any one ^D existed as similar to him.

It is contained in the credal book that there is an anathema against the god of Muhammad, concerning whom he says that he neither begot nor was begotten, and that he is completely solid. He proposed, therefore, to erase such an anathematization from all the books of catechesis, beginning with the very book found in the Great Church. And the pretext was that it is a stumbling block for those Hagarenes who are converting to our orthodox faith, namely, the blaspheming of God at all. Therefore, he calls for the most great Theodosius, who was at that time governing and adorning the first throne, and for those of the archbishops staying in the city who were distinguished by word and virtue; and he communicates the matter to them with ponderous introductory remarks. But he found everyone refusing, and not even listening to the suggestions, as being an abomination and contrary to the most true glory of God.

and of the mass of food; and that, when man was formed, all the other angels of God worshipped him at His command; but Belial alone was not persuaded to worship. And furthermore, I anathematize the God of Muhammad, concerning whom he says that he is one God, a solid idol [holosphyron], who neither begat nor was begotten, nor was there any like unto him.

Having thus anathematized all these things mentioned, both Muhammad himself and his hammered god, and having renounced them, I unite myself to the only true God, Christ ^A; and I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the holy and consubstantial and inseparable Trinity; and I confess the incarnate dispensation and the coming among men of one of the Holy Trinity, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom all things were made. I am fully assured that He truly became man, not casting off His own divinity; and that the same is truly God and truly man, without confusion, without change, and without alteration, in one hypostasis and two natures; and that He willingly suffered all things and was crucified in the flesh, while His divinity remained impassible; and that He was buried, and rose on the third day, and was taken up into the heavens; and that He shall come in glory, to judge the living and the dead. And the Virgin who gave birth to Him according to the flesh, the holy Virgin Mary, who remained a virgin after childbirth, I believe and confess to be properly and truly Theotokos, and truly the Mother of God who became man; and for this reason I worship and honor her as lady and mistress, who by grace has been made ruler of all creation. And the bread and wine, which are mystically offered among Christians and of which they partake in the divine rites, I am persuaded, and confess, and believe to be in truth the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, changed by His divine ^B power.

Ex Libro XXII

...leading them; but those who piously explained that which seemed to be a stumbling block and an offense, and clarified that one should not subject the God of heaven and earth to anathema, but rather the solid idol [holosphyron] fabricated by the delirious and demoniacal Muhammad, who neither was begotten nor did beget. For among Christians, God the Father is glorified; but the rejected ravings of Muhammad forbid this; and in general they did not correctly understand what exactly the "solid idol" [holosphyron] meant.

^C ...that is, according to the interpretation of Hieronymus Volfius, "Ecstal" among the other sanctions of the catechetical table, anathema on the god of Muhammad; whom he affirms neither to have begotten, nor to have been begotten, but to be a solid idol. He wished this anathema to be abolished from all the catechetical booklets, starting from the very table of the Great Church; and this, for a probable reason, indeed. For he said that the Hagarenes, who were defecting to our pious religion, were offended by whatever blasphemies were directed at God. Therefore, having summoned the most excellent Theodosius, who at that time was managing the imperial seat and adorning it, and the leading priests who were then in the city, [men] excelling in eloquence and virtue, he proposed the question with a grandiloquent preamble. But all were resistant, and on no account would they admit to such things, as they led away from the true view concerning God: and in a pious manner they explained that anathema, which was indeed full of offense. For they said that the Creator of heaven and earth was in no way to be marked by anathema; but [rather] that solid-idol god whom the delirious and furious Muhammad would fashion as neither begotten nor begetting. For among Christians God the Father is celebrated; a thing which the detestable triflings of Muhammad clearly prohibit. ^D Furthermore, that he did not sufficiently understand what that "solid-idol" [holosphyron] meant. Here also note that this booklet is called a Catechesis of those who aggregate themselves from Saracenism to the Christian faith, and that it is not junior in time to the previous two, but equal or even older. Since the *Panoplia* of Euthymius was written under Alexius Comnenus; but this Catechesis was in use even in the times of Manuel Comnenus: about forty years after Alexius, as is clear from the catalog of the emperors of Constantinople, edition of ours 897, 29. However, the emperor did not acquiesce in that response of the sacred order, but by his own authority issued a document, in which he taxed the previous emperors and prelates, as those who had less considerately permitted the true God to be subjected to anathema; as Nicetas relates more fully in the same place.

(18) Perhaps someone refers to "the God of the Christians," but that locution is repeated in our archetype also somewhat later, folio 105, in the catechesis of those who confer themselves from Judaism to the Christian faith; where also the following words exist.

(19) Concerning that anathema of the Jews, on the same folio 105, on the other side, that is the reverse, it is briefer: "And [I believe in] the holy Virgin Mary, who gave birth to this one according to the flesh, and remained a virgin after childbirth."

^A by [His] power, intellectually and invisibly, beyond all natural conception, as He alone knows. And thus I too agree that I shall partake of these, as they are in truth His flesh and blood, and are taken for the sanctification of soul and body, for eternal life, and for obtaining the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, by those who participate in them with perfect faith. And I desire to receive the holy baptism of Christ with a pure and sincere soul and heart, and with sincere faith, being truly convinced that it is an intelligible cleansing, and a regeneration of soul and body. And also the venerable cross of the same true Christ and our God, as it is no longer an instrument of corruption and curse, but of liberty and eternal life, and a sign of victory against the devil and death. Furthermore, I also accept, honor, and kiss the venerable icons of the epiphany of the Word of God among men in the flesh, and of the pure Virgin and Mother of God who ineffably gave birth to Him, and of the godlike angels, and of all the saints, as symbols of the prototypes. And [I also] honor and venerate the sacred angels themselves, and all the saints who were well-pleasing to God, as His servants and faithful ministers, for the honor held for Him; and thus, with all my soul and heart, and with true uprightness of mind, I accede to the faith of the Christians. But if I say these things with hypocrisy and deceit, and not from the solid faith of a whole heart, and with a heart loving Christ, let anathema and catathema be my portion, and may my soul be placed with Satan and the demons.

NICETAS CHONIATES

FROM BOOK XXIII

OF THE TREASURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

^C Some time having elapsed, Eustratius, a disciple of that monk John Italus—the author of a new and different doctrine—who presided as archbishop over the city of Nicaea in Bithynia, having often engaged in disputations with the Latins before the imperial tribunal concerning unleavened bread and the Holy Spirit, and wishing to commit to writing what he had brought forward to the Latins and what he had heard from them during the dispute, did not express his views accurately nor commendably. Moreover, when he was in Philippopolis at a hearing of the Emperor, and was holding a debate with a certain Armenian concerning the two natures of Christ, he interjected certain things about God that were entirely unconsidered, and blurted them out with no shame: that the nature long ago assumed by the Word ^D

and to worship the Lord now as before; he adds an explanation of this expression, though I know not by what authority. Upon hearing this strange and altogether unusual utterance, the Armenian was struck with amazement and showered Eustratius with insults, calling him a "Tzyacles." This term in the Armenian tongue signifies one who walks in the manner of a beast. Furthermore, the learned men who stood by the emperor, disapproving of the statement, rebuked Eustratius as a heretic. A short time later, Eustratius was removed from the priesthood as the originator of a new heresy.

NICETAS CHONIATES FROM BOOK XXIV OF THE THESAURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

COUNCIL OF THE GREEK CHURCH CONCERNING THE DOGMA "THOU ART HE WHO OFFERS AND IS OFFERED AND RECEIVES," WHICH WAS DISCUSSED UNDER THE EMPEROR LORD MANUEL COMNENUS AGAINST SOTERICHUS, PATRIARCH-ELECT OF ANTIOCH. Followed by the dialogue of Soterichus concerning his false doctrine, with Philo. (Mai, Spicil. Rom, t. X.)

^BDuring the reign of Manuel, who had the Emperor Alexius as his grandfather and John, that most celebrated among kings, as his father, a question was stirred up concerning the dogma, "Thou art He who offers and is offered and receives." Some maintained that the sacrifice upon the cross was offered to the Father and to the Spirit alone, but not to the Word Himself who offered it; for they said that if this were admitted, the one Son of God would by necessity be divided into two persons, which was the silly opinion of Nestorius. Others, conversely, asserted that the offering was made to the Son as well, as He is one and indivisible, a partner of the supreme Trinity. Those, therefore, who then prided themselves on their eloquence clung to the former opinion; they were

^A all men of their own rank. Some of these muttered in secret, while others proclaimed their opinions confidently and openly, ringing them into the ears of the multitude. At length Soterichus Panteugenus committed his dogma to writing and offered it to anyone who wished to learn it, showing clearly toward which views he inclined, imitating the dialogues of Plato in his discourse, and having composed his writing in this way.

PHILON. I learned that recently two deacons in the synod contended with one another concerning a certain dogma, and that some of those who hold the primacy of doctrine among us favored each of them. However, although I desired to know the arguments of their discussions, it was not yet permitted. But were you, venerable friend, were you, I ask, present?

SOTERICHUS. I was indeed present, my most pleasant friend, and I listened to the speech of both most attentively: yet I was not pleased with these things, because they had more contention than consideration; indeed, I was angry with the authors of this sedition, because, while divine matters should rather be passed over in silence, as their abstruse nature demands ^B and the admonitions of the Fathers persuade, these men overstep things long ago defined and stir up what was kept silent by the ancients; nor do they call to mind the precept of a certain wise man, who, comparing divine things to the sun and fire, advised that we should not fix our direct gaze against the sun, for it is necessary for the eyes to blink and grow dim; not, however, that we should abstain from this most beautiful sight, but that we should enjoy it cautiously, as much as is permitted: likewise, that we should not approach the fire too closely, lest we be burned, yet nevertheless we should not stand too far away if we certainly wish to enjoy the heat.

PHIL. How well, O dear head, you judge concerning divine things! For in these matters one must act religiously, and the curious spirit must be omitted. Indeed, the prescription of physicians concerning the use of hellebore must be preserved, which they say acts as a purge when taken in a coarse piece, but suffocates the user if it is pulverized. ^C But let us now cease to accuse the audacity of those who, with youthful impetuosity, have overstepped the middle line, to speak with them laconically. You, however, tell me the oration of those aforementioned.

SOT. The oration, to speak in brief, was of this kind: that the nature assumed by the Word had not offered its blood only to the Father, but also to the ^D Unigenite One.

^A This statement, when it was uttered, troubled many others, and indeed men distinguished for virtue and learning, because it was not only foreign to the religious rudiments of our people, but also because it introduced the Nestorian division. For if out of these natures one offers and the other receives, it is absolutely necessary that we call the nature that offers—in the manner of a priest and one who sacrifices—a person, and again that we call the nature that receives as God the thing sacrificed, likewise a person. And this is the deadly fault of Nestorius.

PHIL. How dangerous do you consider it to be, that which was said by him who spoke?

SOT. I do not know whether to call it ignorance or error; for if he had stated that the God Word, having become man, himself as priest offered the sacrifice by reason of the humanity assumed, and he himself as victim according to the flesh was offered, and he himself as God received the thing sacrificed, while maintaining the person everywhere in accordance with the actions of the natures—even in this way, I would almost say, such a statement is by no means secure. But to say that the natures, when separated, act each one by itself, with the person as it were set aside, is finally dangerous and is, generally speaking, grievous. ^B But I would pray that neither he himself remains in this opinion, nor those who surround him; wherefore, as being absurd from the outset and not needing many words for its refutation because of its offensiveness, let it be dismissed. But if it is affirmed that the saving host was offered not by the assumed nature, but by the very Theandric Savior Christ, it remains to be considered whether he offered the sacrifice to his own divinity as well.

PHIL. But tell me first, I pray you, what he said and for how long, who opposed him, and what the demonstration of this argument was.

SOT. He adorned his speech with many words, which I will relate as far as I remember. Since, he said, the God Word sanctifies and perfects every sacrifice, why is he not to be believed to have sanctified also the sacrifice of his own flesh? Moreover, he did not sanctify it otherwise than by offering it to his own divinity.

PHIL. What then must our disposition be regarding this? Are we to accept this argument as well-spoken, or not?

SOT. By no means, my good friend; for this argument does not appear true. And against this we say that, since the Word, being hypostatically united to the flesh, immediately sanctified and perfected it, what need was there that it should be sanctified through the offering made to his own divinity? ^C Or why perfect that which from above was becoming immune to every sin, whether voluntary or contracted by natural origin? Therefore, this alone was lacking to it: that it should be offered as a sacrifice to the Father, a thing which the Savior expressed under the name of "sanctification," when, being near to his passion, he said: "I sanctify myself for them." ^D It is evident, therefore, that sanctification is twofold; the one...

^A which he conferred upon the flesh having been united to it, and the other, which he wrought through sacrifice, having offered this to the Father.

PHIL. But if, one may say, he had already sanctified it by his union, why was there need of another, a second sanctification, or of a perfection?

SOT. You force me, best of friends, to stray further from my subject; yet for your sake I will undertake this labor. It is the custom for those who are being reconciled to one another to bestow some mutual gift as a pledge of the friendship that is to be established. Since, therefore, it was necessary that we, having become enemies to God, should be reconciled to Him—for He, by no means forsaking the custom of His goodness, being Himself the first, the God-Word who existed from the beginning, having taken up our substance, granted us the remission of sins and snatched us from the ancient fraud, having ^B conferred upon us many wonderful benefits—yet because it was also right that the Father, who deemed us worthy of adoption, should receive something from us, and since there was nothing pure in us, nor worthy of His majesty, as sin befouled everything, for that reason the God-man Word Himself, supplying our poverty as Mediator, clothed in the form of humanity, offered His own blood, an immaculate victim, a saving sacrifice, most efficacious for reconciling us to the Father. A matter which the divine Paul often declares: "Having been justified," he says, "in the blood of the Son, we shall be saved through him," and again: "We, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the blood of His Son." How therefore is it not reasonably absurd to say that this sacrifice was offered to God the Word? For why was it necessary for Him to be reconciled to us, who was already reconciled to us from the time when He joined Himself to our flesh? And why is it not again insane to say that He was reconciled to Himself through such a sacrifice? Or [to say] that His nature assumed from us has peace with us, but that the same [nature's] deity, united to humanity, needs the propitiation of the sacrifice to be reconciled to us? As if we should say with Paul: "Is Christ divided?" so that one part of Him is friendly, while the other part is hostile? ^C

PHIL. But yet, he says, if what is offered to the Father is offered through God the Word: "For no one," as it is written, "comes to the Father except through me," how could it be that this sacrifice could be offered, unless it had first been offered to the deity of the Only-Begotten?

SOT. Not the deity of the Word, my good sir—for to Him I turn my argument—acted as mediator in the presentations to the Father, but the God-man Word Himself, having become High Priest according to the nature which was assured, and having then offered His own blood, and now offering to the Father those who are saved through Him, that He may deify them by His grace; for this is the end of the oblation. You will understand what we are saying even from that which took place in the sacrifice ^D of the type. For four things were observed in that figurative sacrifice: oblation, consecration, elevation, expiation. For it was offered

^A that the lamb might be consecrated, but when it was consecrated, its blood was elevated to the Holy of Holies; and being elevated and offered, it was expiated. As, therefore, it is impossible to say that what has already been expiated and united is being offered, so neither can the blood of the Savior, being indivisible from his divinity, be said to be offered to the nature itself united to it in the highest degree.

PHIL. But if, he says, the sacrifice was offered to the divinity of the Father, and that same divinity is in the Only-begotten, what prevents us from saying that it was then offered to the divinity of the Only-begotten as well?

SOT. We confess, my good man, that the same divinity is indivisibly contemplated in the three persons. However, as has been said many times, and we are not weary of saying it now, the oblation was made not to the nature of the Father, but to the person of the Father, so that the one offering offered it personally, and the one receiving received it only personally. Wherefore you seem to me to sin in two ways, while you divide the indivisible nature as much as lies in you, and while you attribute to the natures those things which are the properties of the persons. Furthermore, if because the nature is common to the Son and the Father, it happens that the reception of the sacrifice is also common, it is necessary to say that the incarnation is also common to both. For if the divinity of the Word is incarnate, and that same divinity is in the Father and the Spirit, it is necessary to say that the Father and the Spirit were also incarnate. Do you see to what absurdity the statement we have set forth leads you?

PHIL. Meanwhile, however, the divine Basil supports my opinion. For in the sacrosanct liturgy ^B he most piously exclaims to Christ the Savior: "You are He who offers, and is offered, and receives."

SOT. If you mean, my friend, that the Savior offers to the Father the men who are saved through him, and that he himself is offered through the unbloody sacrifice which is made in his commemoration, and that he himself, as God, receives what is offered by us, we agree with your statement, and we go over to your opinion. But if you preach these phrases concerning the natures, omitting the person, and say that the assumed nature offers the things of the flesh, but the sacrifice of the flesh is offered, and it is received by the divinity itself, you are unwittingly weaving a rope from sand.

PHIL. But we will remain in the same opinion, and we will oppose you, and we will not yield to your statement as if it were adulterated and flowed from the insane opinion of Nestorius.

SOT. But even setting these aside, who, imbued with sound doctrine, would understand the oblation as concerning that sacrifice which took place during the passion? Since the apostle Paul proclaims: "Christ died once for our sins," and again: "For this he did once, by offering himself." ^C Finally,

if the Apostle says that his offering ^A was once and one, do you say that he offers himself every day?

PHIL. He did indeed offer himself once, yet he offers now also those who are saved through him, as we have said. And he is offered through the sacrifice which is miraculously changed into his life-giving and saving body and blood. Or do you not hear the priests in every mass saying: "The Lamb is sacrificed"?

SOT. This is said by them excellently indeed, while they express that ancient passion as if it were present. As if it were present, the remembrance which the Savior commanded us to make brings to light, or rather, depicts, those things which were accomplished of old. And just as the method of panegyric ^B orations has the rule to speak of past things as if they were present, on whatever day the solemnity is celebrated, so also we speak in a rhetorical manner of Christ being born and being baptized. And it is customary to do this also concerning the saving passion. Therefore, O man—holy and dear to me—report these things to that man, and if his salvation is near to your heart, persuade him to recede from his doctrine.

PHIL. Dismiss this concern, O good man; for I do not think that he himself will stand in opposition much longer, but rather that, having sung a palinode, he will change his opinion. Therefore, I believe that he should be forgiven by us, and that we should return to friendship.

SOT. I, also, ^C most noble friend, am indulgent to you, and I reach out my right hand to him as he repents; especially since these things are by no means wont to be said out of premeditation, but are wont to escape those who speak as if from sudden impulse.

SYNOD

On the twenty-sixth day of the month of January, in the fourth indiction, our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople presiding in the building sacred to the divine Thomas, with the concurrence of Nicholas, most sacred patriarch of Jerusalem, in the presence ^D of the pansebastos sebastos and grand drungary, Lord Stephen, of the most glorious and grand logothete, Lord John, of the most illustrious of the cabinet, Lord Nicholas Zonaras, of the most illustrious nomophylax and prefect of the domestics, Lord Theodore Pantechnes; and with the most sacred bishops of Ephesus, Heraclea, Ancyra, Cyzicus, Sardis, Claudiopolis, Antioch in Pisidia, Athens, Mocissus, Trapezunt, Larissa, Rhodes, Dyrrachium, Euchai-

Euchaita, Russia, Aenus, Apamea, Methymna, Paronaxia, Mesembria, Bryseas, Gothia, and Heraclea, with the God-beloved despots, princes, and many others also standing by.

Mindful of the blessed Apostle Paul, who says, "Having a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession" (Heb. 10:23), we also are entirely bound, as priests under the great and first high priest, to follow closely this apostolic commandment, not only in all other sacred and divine dogmas, but no less so in the very fearful and venerable sacrifice of the Mass, ^B which is recognized as the primary duty of those who minister divine things. Since, therefore, it is necessary that this should be so, and a certain report has arisen—which has already happened to reach the ears of almost everyone—that the sacrifice performed during the saving passion by the Word who became flesh (I mean that of the Lord's body and blood), and furthermore that the daily mystical divine service celebrated by the priests in remembrance of Him, was in no way offered or is offered to the Son, but only to the Father.

Now, as the most holy Metropolitan of Russia was about to set out upon a rather long journey to his own province, ^C he had indeed made his own opinion clearly known to us at another time, as will be mentioned slightly below, but he also earnestly asked to learn the mind of his brethren on this matter; and because it was necessary not to treat this study with indifference, it seemed right to our mediocrity not only to summon all the local concelebrants now here, but first and foremost our brother, the most holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, Nicholas, and in addition as many as are in this royal city who are truly eminent and more learned than those of the senatorial council.

And when this had been accomplished and the assembly had become full this day, ^D consisting of the aforementioned coming of the most holy patriarch, as well as the members of the senate, the notables, and the hierarchical gathering as has been described, the aforementioned most holy Metropolitan of Russia again set forth these things for a common hearing: that he himself so believes (and indeed it is clearly the case), that the life-giving sacrifice, neither at the beginning when it was accomplished by the Savior Christ, nor subsequently from that time down to the present day, has been or is offered to the Father of the Only-Begotten alone, but also to the Word Himself who became flesh; nay, that the Holy Spirit is not excluded from such God-befitting honor, and that absolutely to the Godhead, which in the Trinity of persons is joined and one

we recognize it to be immortal: this offering of the mysteries was made in the past, is made in the present, and is performed at all times by the power of the Trinity. He declared that he felt this without doubt, that it was firmly proven by the divine Scriptures, and that he was prepared to die for this dogma.

In such a confident spirit, therefore, the Russian spoke. ^B But since the situation required that the assembly of bishops also cast their vote individually, the most sacred archbishop of the metropolitan church of Ephesus, no longer able to restrain the impulse of his divine zeal, exclaimed that he was of the same mind as the Russian, and quite confidently affirmed that he would die in this confession. The rest of the company of bishops delivered the same opinion, and all who were gathered in that assembly, whether they were summoned from the senate or from elsewhere, were found to be in agreement and of one mind, before all others the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Nicholas; to whom were added all those who definitely supported and adhered to the aforementioned dogma.

It is necessary, however, to record their names one by one. From the senate, these: the pansebastos sebastos and grand drungary, Lord Stephen Comnenus; the most glorious protonotary and grand logothete, Lord John; the most illustrious a secretis, Lord Nicholas Zonaras; the most illustrious nomophylax and head of the domestics, Theodore Pantechnes. ^C From the venerable crowd of dignities dear to God, and the rest of the sacred senate: the grand archdeacon, the grand economos, the chartophylax, the sacellarius, the protonotary, the canistrarius, the referendary, the ab actis, the first ostiary, the master of the Gospels, the suggestor, the first head of the churches, the master of petitions, the second ostiary, the second head of the churches, the most learned patriarchal notaries, the second deacon, and others; likewise, a not inconsiderable portion of the most learned and pious deacons who stand by the patriarchal throne, who favored the opinion proposed regarding the offering of the life-giving sacrifice with such firm judgment that they would not even have any question with those who adhered entirely to this dogma, and who were unwilling to pay any heed at all to those who wished to dispute it.

Following these, the most dear to God, the first defender, Michael of Thessalonica, being asked to state his opinion likewise, said that although he had previously doubted concerning this matter, nevertheless, from this time forward, he would not in any way oppose the synodal sentence which was then being spoken of, but indeed promised that he would follow it. ^D The bishop of Dyrrachium, however, when he was also requested to open his mind, first of all delivered this opinion word for word: "My holy lord, and you, my lords and fellow priests, I am not able to speak lightly concerning great matters. For this reason, that which..."

I have often said before to your holiness, I say now also through this present writing of mine. I ask your holiness to give me the questions being raised in writing, and what your holiness thinks about them, so that having pondered them accurately and compared them with the words of the saints, if I perceive them to be consonant, I may deliver myself from doubt; and having become of one mind, if I still have any hesitation, I may ask again and learn. For I am not ashamed of this, since even the great Gregory, who is called by the name of 'Theologian,' says that he desires to be a child and a disciple throughout his life. And one of the outside philosophers says: 'It is good if wisdom and prudence come to a person even in old age.' For we are permitted by the saints to learn even from such people. May your holy prayers favor me! The humble metropolitan of Dyrrachium."

When the paper given by him contained these things, and after it was read, having heard various scriptural authorities brought into the midst ^B which favored and clearly confirmed what was doubted by him, he immediately rose up in the assembly and came into the center. "If before," he said, "I requested time for consideration, as I said in my writing, it was the act of a timid—not to say scrupulous—mind, which did not wish to reply abruptly on this matter. However, having now been convinced by those testimonies of this dogma which I heard read, I cast aside all subsequent doubt, and I declare that I subscribe completely to the opinion of your fraternity. And so, with a clear mouth, I preach and sincerely confess my belief that the life-giving blood and body of the Savior Christ were offered not to the Father alone, but also to the Son and to the all-holy Trinity, first at the time of the Lord’s passion; and that from then on, the mystical daily offerings made in the holy mysteries are presented to the Deity, who subsists in three persons, by those who perform the sacred rites."

Thus far the metropolitan of Dyrrachium. Then indeed all the most holy bishops, my own mediocrity also concurring, along with the aforementioned most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, were moved by divine zeal to subject to anathema the authors of this heretical sect, if any there were, and if they still persisted in their heresy; but if they were to repent, they were not to be received otherwise than as the divine and holy canons and the traditions of the Fathers command. These things, extracted from the commentaries of the synodical acts and confirmed by the subscription and seal of John, most dear to God, the chartophylax Pantechnis, were published in the aforementioned month and indiction, in the year 6964 (A.D. 1456). Subscription: John Pantechnes, chartophylax.

AUTHORITIES OF THE FATHERS.

That the Lamb of God, the Son of the Father, who takes away the sin of the world, is immolated every day; as also those who perform the mystical sacrifice daily affirm to themselves in a low voice that they are doing so.

From the sermon of Andrew of Crete on Palm Sunday.

Of the Lord Leo of Bulgaria, who was the first to be promoted by the blessed Emperor Calaphates, from his epistle On Unleavened Bread.

Of Theodoret, from the twenty-fourth chapter of the interpretations of the more obscure passages of Exodus, whose beginning is: Why did He command those fleeing to celebrate the feast of the Passover?

Of the Great Basil, from his commentary on the prophet Isaiah.

^A And the discourse concerning the feasts shall be held to the same method of interpretation; so that we may not celebrate the Passover in the leaven of malice and wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, the true sheep, Christ, being sacrificed toward evening, that is, at the end of the age, whose flesh is true food.

From Damascenus, from the chapter "On the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord," chap. 86 (7).

Bread and wine are not types of the body and blood of Christ; God forbid! but the very body of the Lord deified; the Lord Himself having said: "This is my body," not a type of the body, but the body; and not a type of the blood, but the blood. And before this, He had said to the Jews: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you will not have eternal life. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." And again: "He who eats me shall live." ^B And after a few words: "This is the pure and unbloody sacrifice, which the Lord said through the prophet would be offered to Him from the rising of the sun to its setting." And a little later: "But if any have called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of the Lord, as the God-bearing Basil did, they said this not after they were sanctified, but, having called the offering thus before it was sanctified, they spoke in that way."

From Chrysostom, from the third book "On the Priesthood" (8).

For when you see the Lord sacrificed and laid out, and the priest standing by the offering and praying, and all of them reddened by that divine blood, do you still think that you are among men and standing on earth, or do you not rather at once migrate to the heavens, and casting out every fleshly thought ^C from your soul, with naked soul and pure mind see things that are in the heavens? O the miracle! O the philanthropy of God towards men! He who sits above with the Father is at that hour held in the hands of all, and gives Himself to those who wish to embrace and hold and enjoy Him. The priest stands, not bringing down fire like Elias, but the Holy Spirit; and he makes the supplication for a long time, not that a flame sent from above may consume the things set before him, but that grace falling upon the sacrifice may through it inflame the souls of all, and make them more brilliant than refined silver. Who, therefore, unless he is plainly insane and mad, ^D could despise this most awesome mystery? Or do you not know that no human soul would ever have been able to endure that fire of the sacrifice, but all would have been utterly destroyed, if the strong protection of divine grace were not present? For if anyone considers what a great matter it is for a man still encompassed by flesh and blood, to approach the blessed...

and incorrupt nature, then he will well know how great an honor the grace of the Holy Spirit has bestowed upon priests; for by them these things are perfected, and other things not inferior to these.

From the same, from the sixth book of the Priesthood (9).

^B When he calls upon the Holy Spirit and performs the most fearful sacrifice, and is constantly touching the common Lord of all, where shall we rank him, tell me? And what purity, what reverence shall we require of him? For consider of what sort those hands should be that handle such things; what sort of tongue that pours forth those words; and whose soul should be purer and holier than that which receives so great a Spirit? Then angels stand by the priest, and the entire sanctuary and every place around the altar is filled with heavenly powers, to honor Him who lies there. And this the very dignity of the mysteries that take place there can easily persuade us. Indeed, I remember also hearing someone recounting that he heard from a certain wonderful old man, one accustomed to seeing revelations, that he had been granted the benefit of such a vision, and that at that time he suddenly saw a multitude of angels, as much as was possible for him, dressed in shining robes and surrounding the altar, looking down toward the ground, just as one might see soldiers standing when a king is present; to which account I entirely assent.

From the same, from the book against the Jews (10).

God, foreshadowing the dissolution of the legal priesthood, says through David: *You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek* (Ps. CXVII, 4), who did not offer legal victims, but prayers and bread and wine, as the sacred history teaches. It is clear, however, that along with the priesthood of Aaron, the legal polity has also ceased, and to the priesthood of Melchizedek has succeeded a polity appropriate to it.

From the same, from the interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew.

And just as the old law had sheep and calves, so this new one has the Lord's blood: *Do this*, He says, *for my commemoration* (Luc. XXII, 19). Do you see how He leads away from Jewish customs and draws them away? Just as you used to do that, He says, for the memorial of the miracles in Egypt, so also do this for my memorial. That was poured out for the salvation of the firstborn; this is for the remission of the sins of the whole world. What then? Should we perform that ancient [sacrifice] also? He says, By no means; for this is why He said *Do this*, so that He might draw them away from that one. For if this achieves the remission of sins, as indeed it does, it follows that that one is now useless.

From the same, from the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews

^A Behold, for we have the priest above, we have the victim above. We offer such victims as can be offered upon that altar.

From the same, from the sermon on the Apostle Thomas

I know Christ, the Son of God and the Father, as God; I know Christ as the Son borne in the hands of His handmaid and mother; I know Christ consubstantial with God and the Father; I know Christ consubstantial with men, as a man from men; I know Christ as heavenly and earthly, invisible and visible; I know Christ as impalpable, and as handled by Thomas; I know Christ as one who fed thousands with a word, and raised the dead, and performed myriad miracles by the power of His own divinity; ^B I know Christ as one who hungered and thirsted and agonized and labored and sweated in human nature; I know Christ as one who died in the flesh. And although I recognize the difference of His two natures, I do not divide the one Son into two sons.

From the same, on the Holy Lights

*This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased*. A Son consubstantial, not of another substance; consubstantial with Me in so far as He is invisible, and consubstantial with you in so far as He is visible, yet without sin. My Son is not one, and the son of Mary another. Do not separate His humanity from His divinity; for they are indivisible.

From the same, from the interpretation of the Gospel according to John

When you approach the altar, and partake of the blood of Christ from the chalice, consider that you have placed your mouth to the side of Christ, and are drinking from His side.

From the same, from the same interpretation

For just as the Jews are circumcised, so are we baptized; and just as they confess only the Father as God, we confess the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father. And just as they sacrificed a sheep, which was a type of Christ, we no longer offer the ^C typical sheep, but Christ Himself, the truth.

From the Theologian, from the discourse “On Theology and the Ordering of Bishops”

Text: *Of the great God and victim and pontiff.* Interpretation of the least Basil: He refers to the great God, our Lord Jesus Christ, ^D known as the great Basil. However, the manuscripts for the orations of the Nazianzen are not held to be of the great, but of the least Basil, of which I have also taken note in the manuscripts. Bandini speaks of these in the Greek codex of the Laurentian Library, vol. I, p. 536.

^A of Christ does He speak, and not of the Father now. This we note against those who ascribe the great title to the Father alone, but give the second place to the Son; for the victim and the high priest [are one], the former inasmuch as He was sanctified and offered up for our salvation, the latter inasmuch as He was not by another, but by His own will, sacrificed Himself, and set Himself forward for a voluntary slaughter.

Of Saint Maximus

Of Photius the patriarch, from the discourse on the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

Of the great Athanasius, from the discourse on the Incarnation

^A From the same, from the interpretation of the Psalter on the words: "Let Thy hand be to save me."

I ask, what is the hand of God for which he thus beseeches, saying: "With a strong hand God brought Israel out of Egypt." What is this? It is Christ Jesus; for He Himself is the hand and the right hand of God. Let Thy hand, therefore, he says, be to save me; perhaps the word "let it be" signifies something like this: may Thy hand come into generation, and let it be for the sake of saving me.

From the holy Cyril, from his anti-heretical discourses Against those who war against the Spirit.

Scripture is accustomed to call the Holy Spirit the finger of God, just as Christ also said: "But if I by the finger of God cast out demons," which another evangelist says as "by the Spirit of God." Likewise, He names the Son the right hand and arm, as it is: "His right hand and His holy arm have saved Him." As, therefore, the arm is consubstantial with Him whose arm it is, so the finger is consubstantial with Him whose finger it is. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

^B That it is the same one who offers and is offered and receives, as pontiff, and host, and God—that is, our Lord Jesus Christ.

From the prayer of the great Basil, the beginning of which is: "No one is worthy."

Deign that these gifts be offered to Thee for me, a sinner and Thy unworthy servant; for Thou art the one who offers and is offered and receives and distributes, our God.

From the holy Cyril of Alexandria, On the mystical supper.

Let us drink His holy blood for the remission of our transgressions and for participation in the immortality that is in Him; believing at the same time that He Himself is priest and sacrifice, He Himself the one who offers and is offered and receives and distributes. ^C We do not on this account divide into two persons the divine and inseparable and furthermore unconfused union of the One of the venerable Trinity.

From the holy Cyril of Jerusalem, from the discourse on the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, the beginning of which is: "Rejoice greatly."

I see an infant, who offers the legal sacrifice on earth; but I see Him receiving the pious offerings of all in the heavens, the same one sitting magnificently upon a cherubic throne, the same one offered and sanctified, the same one sanctifying and cleansing all things. ^D He Himself is the gift, He Himself the high priest, He Himself the propitiatory, He Himself the one who offers, He Himself the sacrifice offered for the world, He Himself the fire

He Himself the incense, He Himself the lamb, He Himself the sword of the Spirit, He Himself the shepherd, He Himself the little lamb, He Himself the priest, He Himself the law, and He Himself the one who fulfills the law.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, from the twelve chapters against Theodoret.

When He became man, He also bore the office of priest, not indeed as though He were performing the sacred rite to God as to one greater, but to Himself and to the Father, ^A thereby working out the confession of our faith. Are you ashamed to hear that He was a priest in that He was man? Why, then, do you not marvel that He performs the manner of the sacred rite not after the custom of other priests, but rather to Himself and to the Father?

The same, from his discourse to the queens.

He was, therefore, high priest in that He was man, although He received the sacrifices of all as God. He is Himself the victim according to the flesh, and the same One who forgives our sins according to the authority of His divinity.

The same, from the passage on the obedience of Christ.

Observe how He exercises the priesthood as man, and is constituted mediator of God and men; for every priest mediates. But He does not offer the manner of the sacrifice in the way of other priests among us, servilely, as one who has no share in receiving it; but He works it for Himself, and through Himself, and in Himself to God and the Father. And after a few words: Therefore, even if He is said to perform the priestly office according to human nature, ^B nevertheless, He Himself receives the sacrifice as God, being the same One who is at once God and man.

From the Tetraevangelion, interpretation of the Archbishop of Bulgaria.

Luke says that the Lord also spoke this: "Do this in remembrance of me." This, he says, is the new mystery; the other was indeed of old. And that one was performed for the memory of the preservation of the Hebrew firstborn in Egypt, and of the freedom which the Jews obtained; but this is done in memory of the Master. For through this sacrifice we call to mind for ourselves that He delivered His own body to death and shed His own blood, and by this rite we perpetually renew the memory of the event. Do you see how He brought the disciples over from the old sacrifice to the new? For what further need of an image was there ^C for those who already possessed the prototype? Furthermore, Chrysostom says that Christ Himself was the first to partake of the mystery, in order that they might not shrink from eating flesh and drinking blood due to the strangeness of the matter; and this is sufficiently demonstrated by His saying: "I say to you that I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my ^D

of my Father. But if he partook of the cup, then surely he partook also of the bread.

The same on that statement from the Epistle to the Colossians of the great Paul, which says: ^A « And through him to reconcile all things to himself. » Through him—that is, he himself who worked salvation—has procured this for us. But so that you may not think that he received the rank of a servant, he says "to himself," meaning that he himself reconciled men unto himself. And yet elsewhere he said that he reconciled them to God; therefore, the things of the Father are common to the Son. Moreover, he did not say "to reconcile" (present/imperfect), but "to reconcile back" (reconciliasset), that is, to restore as a debt long since owed.

Saint Athanasius, from his interpretation of what the royal priesthood is.

Melchisedech, a certain king of Salem. This final term signifies peace, for this man was a type of Christ, not only as being without father or mother, but also because he himself performed the office of both kings and priests, and prefigured the unbloody sacrifice ^B through bread and wine. And thus, he demonstrated the royal priesthood. But according to the present administration, Christ himself is to us the true Melchisedech, as being truly without father and without mother—the former in his pre-existence, the latter in his incarnation—and prince of peace. He is King as God, and Priest as the sacrificer and offerer of himself; for he is both Priest and Victim.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, from his preface to the psalter, while explaining as if in passing those words: « Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity, » and the rest.

Regarding his humanity he says: Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. For the deity is not anointed because of ^C its love of justice and hatred of iniquity; for it is not anointed at all, nor does it have a God above itself, for the anointing itself is God. But rather his humanity is anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, with the Holy Spirit, above his fellows—that is, above all who are anointed. For the deity has no fellows; for God is one, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But the humanity of Christ has fellows above all men, especially the anointed ones. For this reason he said that the humanity of Christ was anointed above all, having been anointed by the Holy Spirit and power; which it has fallen to none of the other anointed ones to say in such a way, "above all your fellows." And he directed the whole of this psalm concerning Christ and the Church, as if concerning a king ^D and a royal bride, to the very end of David.

^A Likewise, he recited the fifty-ninth psalm regarding the same. This matter is testified to by the Lord himself saying to the Jews: "How then does David in the Holy Spirit call Him Lord," saying: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand?" If He is His Son, how is He his Lord? By the word "his Lord," He clearly calls Him God; but the words "Sit at My right hand" clearly befit His humanity, for "sit" is said to one who is not yet seated. But the Deity is established in Its own blessedness, honor, and glory, not being invited or urged to this by any greater being; yet the humanity of Christ is invited by the Deity inseparably united to Him when it hears, "Sit at My right hand," that is, as it were in the equality of My honor. For God has neither a right side nor a left, inasmuch as He is uncircumscribed. He says, therefore: "Sit in My honor, as My person, as the image of God displayed to the whole world." ^B Indeed, Daniel also says thus: "And to Him there was given the kingdom, and honor, and power," and the rest. Moreover, the Lord Himself even said: "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth." ^C But proceeding further in the same psalm, He speaks of the divinity: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten Thee," as if the Father were saying to the Word regarding the divinity: "Before every creature from the womb," wishing by this word to denote consubstantiality; not assuming [this] later, but having Thee in Myself without beginning or end, "as if from the womb, that is, from Our substance, I have begotten Thee, joined to Me and co-existing." ^D Then immediately, and again concerning the humanity, He proclaims: "The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"; for the Deity does not offer sacrifice, but is rather worshipped, and receives the sacrifices. The Apostle Paul also makes mention of this testimony in the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking thus: "Just as Aaron, so also Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, 'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee.'" As he also says elsewhere: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek," understanding everything to [refer to] the humanity.

Syllogism of the Great Drungary, Lord Stephen

so also is the oblation and the reception. For the same person, in so far as he is man, offered, and in so far as he is God, received. ^A

From the second sermon of Eustratius of Nicaea, On the Unleavened Bread.

Indeed, when the sacrifice of the saving passion is offered to Him who suffered for us, whether for our bodily life, or for our souls that those things we have sinned in this life might be remitted, or for those who have migrated from here, it is necessary that the bread which is offered be leavened, because leaven is a symbol of the soul. For the body of the Savior Christ in the passion was both living and animated; and our sacrifices likewise, for the remission of sins, whether of the faithful still living or of the departed, are offered for souls. Yet it is no hindrance at all if we sometimes offer bread in thanksgiving for our bodily life; for just as the Lord made our body His own through the incarnation, so also the bread which each one offers for himself, He claims for Himself and makes His own body, and distributes it to us. ^B

From the sermon of Patriarch Photius, the beginning of which is: "How the death of Christ could be said to be both voluntary and involuntary to the Father? And how, again, it happens that the same death was both voluntary and involuntary to the devil."

The price of redemption is generally considered under two notions: namely, as the release of captives and as a gift offered to the lord of the captives. The blood of Christ, in so far as it serves as a release, can indeed be called the price of redemption; but in so far as it is a gift to the dealer, it cannot be called by that name. And indeed, many other things belong to a price in the proper sense that do not correspond to this arcane and ineffable economy. For he who has given a price, because he can no longer be the master of that thing, suffers a necessary loss; on the contrary, he who receives it is increased by profit, and becomes the master of the thing which was not previously in his power. ^C Now, here everything is the opposite. He who offered the price (since all things are in the power of God, and neither the blood of Abel nor that of the martyrs was outside His providence and domain), he, I say, suffered no loss. For who would ever want to think that He who cares for His servants, and whose blood has been shed, and who hears the cries of the dead as if they were living—who, I say, would think that the saving blood which quickens the world was not preserved safe in the treasuries of His providence, and defended from all corporeal corruption? ^D Therefore, he who offered the price has not suffered loss; rather, the merciful Jesus has gained the salvation of our whole race.

^A Of Damascene. Does the God and Father of all things will as he is Father, or as he is God? But if he wills as Father, his will will be different from the will of the Son, for the Son is not the Father. But if he wills as God—and the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God—then the will is of nature, that is, natural. Therefore, you too, having constructed a syllogism in this way, ask: Did the God and Father of all things, as Father, receive the blood of the Only-begotten, or as God? But if he received it as Father, his power and operation will be different from that of the Son, for the Son is not the Father. But if he received it as God—and the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God—it follows that the blood of the Only-begotten, of one of the holy Trinity, was received by the same holy Trinity as God. ^B From the synodicon which is read in the Great Church. To those who say that, at the time of the life-saving passion of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, the sacrifice of his precious body and blood which was offered for our salvation by him, acting as high priest in the human nature assumed for us—because he is both sacrificer and victim, as the great theologian Gregory says—was indeed offered by him to God and the Father, but was not received by the Only-begotten himself as God, nor by the Holy Spirit; thus, by this assertion, they exclude the Word of God himself, and his consubstantial and co-glorious Spirit the Paraclete, from divine honor and purity and dignity: let there be anathema. ^C To those who do not allow the sacrifice offered daily by the priests of Christ, who minister the divine mysteries, to be offered to the holy Trinity, contradicting the holy and divine Fathers Basil and Chrysostom, with whom the rest of the God-bearing Fathers also agree in their own discourses and writings: let there be anathema. ^D To those who, when they hear the Savior saying in the sacrifice of the divine mysteries instituted by himself: "Do this in my remembrance," do not rightly understand the word "remembrance," but dare to say that the sacrifice of his own body and blood—which was performed by our Savior on the precious cross for the common redemption and propitiation of human nature—is renewed fantastically and figuratively by the sacrifice offered daily by those who celebrate the divine mysteries, as our Savior and Lord of all has delivered; and therefore assert that this sacrifice is different from that which our Savior once performed, and is referred to that one only fantastically and figuratively—to these, I say, as they empty [the mystery] of the fearful and divine

^A ministry, through which we receive the earnest of the life to come; and this, even though the divine Father, the all-wise and golden-mouthed John, has clearly taught that there is no difference between the two sacrifices, and has affirmed in many of his interpretations of the great Paul that they are one and the same: anathema.

Those who invent and introduce chronological distinctions into the reconciliation of human nature with the divine and blessed nature of the life-giving and all-immaculate Trinity; and who first decree that we were reconciled by the only-begotten Word by virtue of the humanity He assumed, but afterwards were reconciled to God the Father at the time of the saving passion of Christ the Lord; and who thus divide the indivisible, whereas the divine and blessed Fathers teach that through the whole mystery of the incarnation we are reconciled to the Only-Begotten, and through Him to God the Father, and consequently altogether to the all-holy and life-giving Spirit: upon these, I say, as the authors of new and foreign questions: anathema.

ACTA SYNODICA REGARDING THE DOGMA OF WHICH PANTEUGENUS SOTERICHUS WAS THE AUTHOR

The twelfth day of the month of May, the fifth indiction. The God-crowned, most powerful Emperor, Lord Manuel Comnenus, presiding in the palace of the Blachernae, with the most beloved cousins of his sacred Majesty, the sons of the illustrious sebastocrator, Lord Andronicus the protosebast, in attendance; ^B

And the protovestiarius, Lord John Comnenus, and his brother, Lord Alexius; The most beloved cousin of the powerful and holy emperor, Lord Alexius Contostephanus; The pansebast sebast and son-in-law of our powerful and holy emperor, Lord John Cantacuzenus; The pansebast sebast and son-in-law of the most blessed Porphyrogenita, sister of our powerful and holy emperor, the most beloved lady Theodora, Lord John Angelus; The pansebast sebast, Lord John Contostephanus; The pansebast sebast, Lord Constantine Palaiologos; The pansebast sebast, Lord Alexius Palaiologos; The pansebast sebast and eparch, Lord Andronicus Camateros; The most glorious great logariast sebast and protonotary, Lord John; The most glorious protonotary and overseer of the Canicleion, Lord Theodore Stypiota; The most glorious mysticus, Lord Nicephorus Borbnos; ^{C D}

^A the most glorious great drungary, Lord John Macrembolites; the most illustrious protoasecretis, Lord Nicholas Zonaras; the most illustrious protocurator and master of petitions, Lord Michael Camaterus; the most illustrious protocurator, nomophylax, and master of the domestic departments, Lord Theodore Pantechnes; the most illustrious protocurator and keeper, Lord Elias Burtes; the senate being present, and those sitting with it and conducting the business together: the patriarch of Constantinople, Constantine; the patriarch of Jerusalem, the monk John; sitting with us also, the elect of the great city of God, Antioch, Soterichus Panteugenus; ^B and the following, who were likewise treating the matter brought forward: the archbishop of all Bulgaria, the monk John; the archbishop of Cyprus, the monk John; and likewise consenting with us, the bishops: Stephen of Caesarea, John of Cyzicus, Theophylact of Nicomedia, John of Side, Basil of Thessalonica, Constantine of Neocaesarea, Calus of Laodicea, Theodore of Corinth, George of Athens, Leo of Mocissus, Basil of Naupactus, Theodore of Philippopolis, Leo of Adrianople, George of Apamea, Constantine of Corcyra, Nicholas of Attalia, John of Paronaxia, Theodore of Mesembria, Constantine of Arcadiopolis, ^C Nicetas of Parium, John of Selybria, Gregory of Arabissos, Michael of Lemnos, and Acacius, the monk of Heraclea; and also the most God-beloved bishops who were present in the city: George of Patras, ... of Trachala, Dionysius of Hyrcania, Constantine of Dalisandus, Leo of Argos, John of Demetrias, Basil of Arta, ... of Antandrus; and there being present also the most God-beloved ecclesiastical officials.

That the heart of a pious king is in the hand of God, as Scripture says, and that his counsels do not depart far from the divine will, our God-crowned emperor has now clearly demonstrated to us by his very deeds; ^D of whom we may say that he has been made rich with the mind of Christ, to use the words of the divine and great Apostle. For since he has entrusted both his soul and his body to divine governance, it is impossible that he should depart from his duty. Therefore, to enumerate his other virtues at this time—whether those that outwardly render the king magnificent beyond human condition, or those that inwardly and secretly demonstrate him to be excellently fashioned according to the archetype of divine beauty—it would perhaps seem superfluous and untimely to recount them.

^A But we must say only this: why he judged it necessary to assemble the present synod. For as soon as he understood that certain priests were cherishing in their minds and pronouncing in words certain absurd dogmas, abhorrent to the right faith, concerning that sacrifice of his own body and blood which our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ offered at the time of his passion for the propitiation of our sins; and likewise concerning that which is performed daily in the holy liturgy of the life-giving mysteries by priests, the initiation of which Jesus himself made at the holy supper, as the holy and God-inspired Gospels recount; and when he perceived that this disease was gradually spreading to others, by which certain stubborn and contentious men were rashly being afflicted, he was immediately gripped by a divine zeal, as befits one who is truly a fervent zealot for piety. Having for the time being set aside the pressing worldly cares by which his holy throne is unceasingly beleaguered, he rightly and most religiously followed that evangelical example, namely, that he should send his angels to remove from the midst these scandals and those who work ^B iniquity: who, although they knew God, did not glorify him as God, but became vanity in their thoughts and syllogisms; and their foolish heart was darkened, and professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Wherefore, we all who are gathered in the Holy Spirit, as many as are dwelling in this royal city and in the neighboring and distant provinces, by the will and judgment of our God-guided emperor—with his holy majesty presiding, the senate standing by, and we, the patriarchs of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, conducting this business with his majesty, and with us the archbishops of Bulgaria and Cyprus cooperating, and holding and confirming the same views which even in the synodal acts of the 26th of January, in the fourth indiction now passed of the year 6664 (AD 1156), those then gathered in the most holy Great Church, the most holy archbishops and the rest (among whom some of us also were), ^C answered orthogonally to the question set forth by our most holy confrere, the metropolitan of Russia, Constantine—we, being of one mind, do now confirm them.

For although it is frequently affirmed in Scripture and is acknowledged, that the Word and Son of this eternal Father, whom we understand as God and man in one person, at the time he accomplished our salvation, as the great and first high priest offered himself to the Father as a life-giving and world-saving sacrifice; yet it is by no means, as some say, that he had no communion in receiving this, nor was the only-begotten Son of God himself—who set himself before us as an immaculate victim—either a participant in the sacrifice, ^D or even consubstantial with the same life-giving

^A Spirit; nor do the Son and the Spirit fail to receive together the life-giving sacrifice perfected by us according to his institution, and offered by him to the Father. Although, therefore, Scripture has often spoken in the aforementioned manner regarding that first oblation, as is evident; yet one will nowhere find it handed down in that same divine Scripture that the Word offered himself hypostatically—that is, that the divine nature itself offered itself per se to the Father, as these men babble, for that salvific victim of our race; nor that the Son did not receive it along with the Holy Spirit.

But that we may also set forth written testimonies which evidently demonstrate the truth of this dogma, let there come forward as witnesses those irrefutable and light-bearing Fathers, who have already explicitly clarified matters concerning this; and first, the great Basil, mighty in divine things, whose voice we attend to in no other way than as the voice of God. In the prayers of the Mystagogy composed by him, he writes thus clearly, when he addresses the Savior Christ: “Deign, that these gifts may be offered to Thee by me, a sinner and Thy unworthy servant. For Thou art He who offers and is offered, and who receives and distributes, O Christ our God.” These words Chrysostom, in the prayers of the liturgy edited by him, admitted and changed in no way. Moreover, the divine Gregory, most famous for miracles, in the sermon edited by him on the evangelical saying: *This is my beloved Son* ^B, speaks thus to the letter: “This is my Son and lamb, the same priest and victim, the same one offering and the one offered, the same one immolating and the one immolated, the same one having become the victim and the same one receiving the victim.”

Consonant with these, the lamp of the Church of Jerusalem, Cyril, spoke in the sermon composed by him on the divine Meeting of the Lord, saying: “He is the sacrificer, and he is the one receiving the sacrifice.” Furthermore, the most great and divine Cyril, the luminary of Alexandria, in his sermon on the mystical supper and the washing [of the feet], speaks thus explicitly: “Let us drink his blood…” etc., down to “of the venerable Trinity.” The same, likewise in his sermon to the queens, having often commemorated the priesthood of Christ, proceeds thus: “Observe how…” etc., down to “God and man.” Furthermore, the wise Theodoret, explaining the apostolic passage where it is said: *Who has no need daily, just as those priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, then for the people’s*, adds these things: “But this one offered up his own body; the same one being priest and victim; and insofar as he is God, receiving the gift with the Father and the Spirit.” Explaining also the Davidic text: *Thou art priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech* ^D, he interprets thus: “Christ now also sacrifices, having been born according to the flesh from Judah, even if he offers nothing, but is offe- [alt-version omitted]

offer]. For he calls the Church his own body; and he performs the priestly office as man, but receives what is offered as God.”

These few things, culled from many of the divine Fathers for the sake of a clear demonstration of the truth, we have inserted into this commentary, avoiding prolixity of words. But it is permitted to those who wish to labor further to gather the accuracy of the divine dogma from many other places as well. Since, therefore, the God-bearing Fathers speak so concordantly concerning this matter, it is evident that when Christ the Lord voluntarily offered himself in sacrifice, in so far as he was man, he offered himself; but in so far as he was God, he himself also, together with the Father and the Spirit, received the sacrifice. And in this consists the question proposed, for the sake of which we were also gathered at a previous time. Thus, however, it is entirely necessary that the pupils of the Church and worshippers of the Trinity believe: namely, that of old in the Lord’s Passion, the theanthropic Word presented the saving victim both to the Father, and to himself as God, and also to the Spirit—from whom man was brought from nothing into existence; whom he offended by his transgression; and to whom he was finally reconciled through the passion of Christ. Indeed, even now likewise, the bloodless sacrifices are truly offered to the creative and authorial Trinity, and are received by the same.

^B Since, however, it could not be that the magnanimous emperor, and likewise our concordant and brotherly assembly, should not take care to discover and refute by every means the sowers of these weeds, who have mixed this evil and thorny seed with the pure wheat of orthodoxy, and have dared in perverse speeches to say that the correct dogma of the Church is an addendum to the Nestorian insanity—because, forsooth, they think that in this way the theanthropic man is divided into two Christs (O the insanity!), while the only-begotten Son and Word of God is said by us to offer as man, but to receive as God; for this reason the emperor wished that each of you should be asked for your opinion on this matter, and also whoever are participants in this council, provided they are invested with the honor of the diaconate, should be questioned. ^C Then, indeed, when all the other honorable deacons who stand before this royal and sacred throne confessed that dogma with one mind and voice and consented to it, Nicolaus Basilaces, master of the apostolic readings, immediately at the beginning of our meeting, and even today leaping into the midst, launching into a long circuit of words from the very beginning of the matter, set forth to all who were listening the reasons why he doubted concerning this dogma; signifying in all things that he said that he was the leader of this discord

^A and that, as a consequence, since he judged it to be a new invention, he was entirely unwilling to accept it.

Now, when we two patriarchs were in agreement on this dogma, and also we archbishops of Bulgaria and Cyprus, and all the rest of the bishops in the synod held a unanimous opinion without anyone dissenting, it was necessary for the elect patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, Soterichus, who was sitting with us, to be questioned regarding his own opinion. Then, indeed, it became manifest what was being sought. For he would sometimes ask for time to consider before answering, as if such a great span of time since the beginning of this blasphemy against Christ had not sufficed him for the knowledge of sound doctrine; at other times, he would respond with one thing after another, with little consistency. Therefore, being interrogated by us today whether he believed that the sacrifice had been offered to the blessed Trinity both formerly and is still offered now, as our previous discourse explained, or whether it had been offered to the Father alone, he answered that it was neither offered to Him alone, nor not to Him alone. Sometimes, moreover, he would fall into strange opinions; for he assigned the act of “offering” ^B as a hypostatic property to the Son, though we know not where he fished out this doctrine. Furthermore, he affirmed that “receiving” [the sacrifice] was a certain quality proper to the Father’s person, just as much as the attribute of unbegottenness, which the Church has received from ancient tradition to be the sole peculiar attribute of the Father. Then, he even endeavored to draw us also into his own opinion by means of contrary syllogisms. For, he said, if “receiving” were not, as he claimed, something most proper to the paternal hypostasis, but rather, as we say, to the divine nature, then something absurd would perhaps follow—namely, that God would be God at one time and not at another. For he said that the “offering” is not eternal, but came into being after the incarnation, and is a created thing; and therefore, the “receiving” also occurs within a certain space of time. These things he said, ^C as if we were establishing that “receiving” is a kind of definition and reason (or pertains to the essence) of the incomprehensible and supersubstantial deity, and not rather that we were keeping this property remote from the divine dignity. This was the sum of the speech of the elect of Antioch, lest, by recounting each of the things said by him, we extend this narrative too long.

But before all of us, the most wise and full of august prudence, and one bearing a divinely-taught mind like Solomon, our most mighty and holy emperor, did not shrink from descending even to dialectical discussions with Soterichus, and he persisted for a long time trying to retract the man from his opinion with hortatory words, pressing him with arguments according to his own innate royal knowledge, and turning his adversary hither and thither with subtle syllogisms, acting in a way that showed his great natural talent and his mastery of these subjects, ^D and he did not grow weary; and among other things, he lovingly recalled to his mind the words of Paul to the Corinthians, that he might—namely, that

^A we all say the same things, and that there be no schisms among us. But he who is perfected in the same mind and in the same judgment—or, rather, he who disturbs the Church—shall bear the judgment. Since matters stood thus, and yet he did not cease from his own obstinacy, our wise, truly powerful, and holy Emperor said to him: "One must consider what kind of fear hangs over one who says that the consubstantial and undivided Trinity receives the sacrifice offered for us; and whom among the three Persons he thinks he has to fear for provoking his indignation. Will the Father be indignant at such a man, who sets the Son to be honored equally with himself? Far from it. Will the Son be vexed that he is glorified with his own Father? And yet he, being the splendor of the Father's glory, said in the Gospels: *He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father* [cf. John 5:23], and *I and the Father are one* [John 10:30]. Will, finally, the Holy Spirit be angry, who is co-eternal with them and resides on the same throne? By no means. For nothing in the Trinity lacks honor. ^B Such fear, therefore, regarding this matter is unreasonable, not to say entirely irrational."

With these most learned arguments, which had much of wisdom and no less power to persuade and compel assent, he eventually—though belatedly and with difficulty—softened the harshness and stubbornness of his opposition, and was finally persuaded to change his mind. To these points he agreed that he would hold the same opinion as we do, to such an extent that he set forth his own judgment in writing, and subjected those who do not think in this way and do not believe as the Church sees fit to anathema. This judgment he read aloud while standing in the midst of this royal and holy council, and it read word for word as follows: "I agree with the holy and sacred synod on this dogma: that the sacrifice, both that which is now offered and that which was once offered by the only-begotten Word made man, was then offered and is now offered, as one and the same. ^C And whoever does not think so, I anathematize him; and if anything contrary is found to be written, I likewise anathematize it." The signature: Soterichus Panteugenus.

These things having been thus settled, it seemed to us necessary to deliberate additionally regarding his appointment—namely, whether it was proper for him to remain in the ecclesiastical state hereafter, or to be promoted to the patriarchate itself. Our most powerful and holy Emperor immediately declared that this question should not be deferred, and with his supreme authority granted us leave to do whatever we pleased according to the canons. For he believes that the exact observance of the holy and divine canons must be maintained in all things. Therefore, upon deliberating with one another in common regarding this matter, Soterichus Panteugenus, the patriarch-elect of the city of God, Antioch, ^D was judged unworthy of any priestly dignity hereafter. When, therefore, seven from among us, who are to be named below, requested that we first more accurately investigate...

this matter, and in another session each express his own opinion.

I, the Constantinopolitan, say he must not be admitted to the priesthood, because for two years now, not secretly or in corners, but openly, he has contradicted the right dogma and has publicly declared himself a patron and defender of perverse doctrine. ^A

I, the Hierosolymitan, hold the same opinion that my most holy lord and fellow-priest of Constantinople has piously and according to the will of God determined regarding this matter.

I, the Bulgarian, say it is impossible that he should be allowed to retain the priesthood, because he has stirred up such a scandal against the Church, and because I believe many others have followed him, and we do not know if they will ever return to the truth with sound judgment. ^B If, according to the Lord’s utterance, for a man who has scandalized one of the least of those who believe in Christ, it is better that a millstone be hung about his neck and he be cast into the depths of the sea, what punishment will he be liable to who has scandalized many regarding the dogma? Moreover, it is sufficiently recognized from various divine canons that he can in no way be admitted to the priesthood, but rather is to be deposed.

I also, the Cypriot, say that, being a stranger, I did not previously know accurately the blasphemies he utters against the right dogma of the Church. But from what I heard him say ^C today before the royal and ecclesiastical throne, I judge him not only completely unfit for the high priesthood, but also unworthy of the diaconal rank which he seems to have held until now, so that he should be cast out even from that.

I, the Caesarean, as he has often stood against orthodoxy, do not admit him to the priesthood.

I, the Corinthian, judge him unworthy of any priesthood, as one who has held and spoken impious and blasphemous thoughts. For even if he has now pronounced an anathema against them, he is nonetheless excluded from the priesthood and the clergy, according to the great Athanasius of Alexandria in his letter to Bishop Rufinianus, and according to other divine canons. ^D Certainly, the synodical definition of the sixth council partly states thus: "These things, therefore, having been established by us with all diligence and care, we define that it is not permitted for anyone to produce, or write, or compose another faith, or to set forth, or teach, or deliver another creed." And after a few words: "Or to introduce a new manner of speaking, or invention of words, to the subversion of the things we have defined. And if bishops or clerics do this, they shall be exiled from the episcopate and the clergy; if..."

^A monks or laymen, let them be anathema." Consonant with this canon is the definition of the second holy synod of Nicaea, as well as other authorities of the holy and God-inspired Fathers.

I, the Athenian, say that I will never admit to the priesthood one who has so lately and with such difficulty retreated from his impiety, and this even though he was a candidate for the patriarchate; and if any should admit him, I sever myself from them.

I, the Larissaean, agreeing for the rest with the Athenian, rely especially on the epistle of the great Athanasius, and I judge this man unworthy of every ecclesiastical dignity.

I, the Adrianopolitan, speak to this effect: if, according to the divine and immaculate evangelists and the sacred and divine canons, it is not permitted for someone to attain the priesthood who has once been convicted of being caught in some sin—as is the lot of men who fall into such things, being ^B circumscribed by this clay and flesh—how is it possible to promote to the priesthood the candidate for Antioch, a man over sixty years of age, reputed to be successful in learned discourse, and proposed for the patriarchal throne, but who now is found not only using speech at variance with the orthodox faith, but is also the author of a libel teeming with blasphemies and impious absurdities, and who has only now with difficulty been persuaded to change his mind and learn again the godly and orthodox position? Because of this, therefore, I too do not deem such a one worthy of the priesthood.

And having come together for examination, we who have just declared our vote against him, declare him unworthy of all priesthood, not only on account of the things he spoke today with such persistency, but because from the time when this blasphemous ^C dogma was bruited abroad, a discourse was set forth in defense of this novel heresy; and he was revealed not only to be the leader and advocate in writing of such impiety, but also frequently discoursing without writing, both with many others and with some of us, he thus openly confirmed such impiety and was a scandal to the souls of Christians. And so we, the greater part of this synod, pronounce this sentence in his regard, just as the assembly of divine Fathers gathered in Nicaea similarly brought to the struggling Church just aid for the condemnation of the mad Arius. But to some of us, namely those of Heraclea, Cyzicus, Side, Thessalonica, Caesarea, Philippi, and Laodicea, it did not seem right ^D to decide this at present, but rather that it should be considered further and only then, finally, should a sentence be delivered.

On the thirteenth day of the month of May, in the second indiction, while our God-crowned emperor and sovereign, Manuel Comnenus, presided in the palace of the Blachernae, with all those aforenamed attending his holy majesty, except for the protonotary, the great drungarius, the protoasecretis, and the nomophylax; and while we, the patriarchs, sat in council—excluding the Antiochene—and passed judgment on this matter; our associate in judgment, the Bulgarian,

^A also sharing in our common decision, with the Bishop of Cyprus not being present, and with all of us, the aforementioned chief priests, deliberating together.

Since the record of what occurred yesterday could not be read due to the shortness of time and was intended to be read today, but the patriarch who had arrived for the great city of God, Antioch, Soterichus Panteugenus, was not present—even though he had been commanded by the imperial and divine circumspection^B to appear today without delay—it was therefore necessary to notify him again so that he might be present for the reading of the acts; and that if by chance he did not wish to attend, the reading of the acts should nevertheless take place. Therefore, there were sent to him from among our chief priests: Theodore of Corinth, Leo of Adrianople, and Nicholas of Parium; and along with them was sent the judge of the velum, Thomas Hapluchres. They, in truth, making the matter known, left a written summons with him to appear, as has been said. The document handed over was verbatim as follows:

In the month of May, the thirteenth day, in the second indiction, in the presence of the deacon of the Great Church, Theodore Belissariotes, of George the lector of Antioch, overseer of decorum, and of George the lector of Adrianople, the Scutariote; by imperial, divine, and venerable command, though not in writing, we, the bishops, by the authority entrusted to us by the most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, and by the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, the monk lord John, and furthermore by the most holy archbishop of all Bulgaria, the dearest uncle of our powerful and holy emperor, the monk lord John Comnenus; and also in accordance with those who have gathered today in the Blachernae palace for the holy and divine synod; we arrived at the venerable monastery of the Hodegon, and having been admitted to the presence of the one formerly elected patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, lord Soterichus Panteugenus, we announced to him what we had in our mandates, in these words: "Our most powerful and holy emperor commanded yesterday that the aforementioned holy synod, and you also, should convene today to hear the reading of the record concerning the matters debated and acted upon in your hearing yesterday, the twelfth of the present month, before the imperial throne and the holy and divine synod."

"But since the said most holy patriarchs and the other chief priests have convened in the Blachernae palace, and the God-crowned emperor is now presiding and the synod is in full attendance, and you have not arrived, we have been sent, as has been said, to invite you that you may be present without delay today for the reading of yesterday's acts. For know that if you do not do so, the acts will be read nonetheless, even in your absence. For our most holy, God-chosen emperor, compelled by [his duty]..." ^CD

^A the pressing and necessary cares of the empire, can no longer delay his departure; and for this reason he remains seated all day long, awaiting your arrival. Yesterday he ordered that all should convene today.

To this, Soterichus replied that he could not be present either today or tomorrow because of a fever with which he said he was afflicted; for he was lying in bed, and he claimed he did not know whether his illness would worsen. He added, however, that they should decree what was pleasing [to them] even in his absence. We, in turn, signified to him again that if he did not appear at once, the aforementioned matter would be read today, and every door to legal defense would be closed to him. The synodal decree was therefore read before the royal throne; and we, the patriarchs present—as well as I, the [Archbishop] of Bulgaria, and the other bishops—were asked whether indeed the reading of yesterday's acts, as had been declared, should take place. And since no one among us expressed any doubt that this should be read, it was read. ^B Since we were also present, the bishops who had asked yesterday to deliberate on whether the aforementioned Panteugenes should be in a clerical state, or even promoted to the patriarchate, or not—with all the others affirming that he was unworthy of any clerical state—we also, namely the [Bishop] of Heraclea, of Cyzicus, of Side, of Thessalonica, of Neocaesarea, of Philippi, and of Laodicea, went over to that opinion, and we expressed without any hesitation that we thought and spoke the same as our other fellow priests.

The humble monk Lucas, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of New Rome, consenting to the acts written in the present volume under our predecessor, the most blessed patriarch Lord Constantine, I also, defining [it], have subscribed. ^C

The humble monk John, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Mother of all the Churches, the holy Sion, the city of Jerusalem, defining [it], have subscribed.

The humble monk John Comnenus, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Justiniana Prima and of all Bulgaria, defining [it], have subscribed.

Although I have subscribed after the most blessed Archbishop of Bulgaria, compelled by the sacred necessity of the ecclesiastical matter, no prejudice shall be done hereby to the See of Cyprus; ^D for I maintain that I hold a superior position for many titles. Wherefore, while I also consent to the things defined in the volume, I nevertheless vindicate for myself the right of my see. Furthermore, I embrace the writings, and I pray to die in this opinion and faith. The least of monks and, by the mercy of God, Archbishop of Cyprus, John.

The humble archbishop of the metropolis of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Stephen, defining [it], have subscribed.

The least of the metropolitans of Heraclea, Peter, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Ancyra, Stephen, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Cyzicus, John, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Nicomedia, Theophylact, having defined, have subscribed. The metropolitan of Nicaea, Leo: although I was not present at the investigation of the present matter, which is treated in the current commentary, nevertheless, consenting to the present action, I also have subscribed. ^A The least of the metropolitans of Chalcedon, though unworthy, Constantine, having agreed, I also have likewise subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Side, John, having also defined, have subscribed ^B. The least of the archbishops of the metropolis of Thessalonica, Kalos: thus have I always felt and do feel by the grace of God, and have taught and do teach; and promising to feel and to teach so until the end of my miserable life, as is contained in the present volume, following the example of the others, I also, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Claudiopolis, Gregory, having defined, have subscribed. The humble bishop of the most holy metropolis of Neocaesarea, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Laodicea, Kalos, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the archbishop of the metropolis of Corinth, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the bishop of the metropolis of Athens, George, having defined, have subscribed ^C. The least of the metropolitans of Amastris, John, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Mocessus, Leo, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Patras, Constantine: although I was not present at the investigation of the present matter, nevertheless, consenting to the present action, I also have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Larissa, George, having also defined, have subscribed. The least of the bishop of the holy Church of God in Nicopolis, Basil, having also subscribed. Theodore, the least of the metropolitans of Philippi, having defined, have subscribed ^D. George, the least of the metropolitans of Apamea, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Corcyra, Constantine, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Methymna, Michael, having agreed and defined, have subscribed. John, the least of the metropolitans of Paronaxia, having also defined, have subscribed. Nicholas, the least of the metropolitans of Attalia, having defined, have subscribed. The least of the metropolitans of Arcadiopolis, Constantine, having defined, have subscribed.

Michael, the humble bishop of Lemnos, defining, I have subscribed. ^A Acacius, the humble archbishop of Heraclea, a monk, defining, I have subscribed. Dionysius, the humble archbishop of Hyrcania, defining, I have subscribed. I, the last of the high priests in word and honor, overseer of the obscure Dalisandri, hold the balance of my mind equal to my master, the Scutariotes of Side. Georgius, the humble bishop of Patara, defining, I have subscribed.

FROM BOOK XXV

TO THE KIND READER, ANGELO MAI

We publish, God willing, an hitherto unedited Greek synod, venerable for the gravity of its dogma, distinguished by the number of patriarchs and metropolitans, and honored by the presence and acts of the most glorious Caesar Manuel, from an ancient autograph and a codex completed in the very inner sanctum of the synod. This is Greek codex Vatican 1176, of parchment, in quarto, written with slightly larger letters and the greatest care and calligraphy; Leo Allatius once saw it indeed, but he in no way indicated where it was hidden, yet now it has easily occurred to me searching in the shelves of the Vatican library. That the codex is an autograph, the final signatures of the bishops themselves demonstrate, written in the distinctive character of each, sufficiently varied and difficult. Furthermore, the authenticity of this synodal codex is demonstrated by the images of Emperor Manuel and his wife Maria, painted in gold and various colors at the front of the codex, which could only have been made while the princes were alive: for when Manuel died, a total transformation of public affairs immediately occurred, with the tyrant Andronicus rising up, who killed Augusta Maria on the spot, and shortly after extinguished the boy Alexius, Manuel’s heir, with equal wickedness. This same synod also exists in more recent codices of the Vatican library, namely Vat. 680 and Reg. 67. The dogmatic edict of Emperor Manuel is written separately in Ottob. 309. Now, one may read the historical account of this synod in Cinnamus, as well as in Choniates and Ephraem; but since the rest appears quite clearly from the reading of the synod itself, which I have rendered into Latin, I did not wish to preface these matters more verbosely.

SYNOD HELD ON ACCOUNT OF THAT SAYING, BECAUSE, MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.

Exposition of those things which were done concerning the controversy over the interpretation of the sentence which is read in the Holy Gospel, uttered by our true God and Savior Jesus

Christ, namely, *My Father is greater than I* 1. Whatever was previously said by those who interpreted that sentence in various ways is recited: and the authorities of the holy Fathers are brought forward; then those things which were subsequently decreed; and also those things which happened after the true interpretation had been established by decree. Finally, the truly religious edict of our powerful and holy king Porphyrogenitus, Emperor of the Romans, the lord Manuel Comnenus, is set forth.

ACTIO PRIMA

^A 1. In the twenty-third year of the empire, while Manuel Comnenus held the scepter—whom the purple received at birth, wisdom brought forth to the light of life, fortitude nourished, and the faith of true religion led to a perfect age; whom God chose like David, because He knew him to be equally most meek, and preferred him over his elder brothers for the inheritance of the paternal diadem, and adorned him with trophies won from the enemy from the eastern regions even unto the west—in this year, I say, a question arose throughout the Church, which, like a spark of fire born from a small beginning, with the spirits of contrary parties fanning it on both sides, grew into a high-reaching torch. And it did not only seize the episcopal sees, but also invaded the monastic orders; and not only these, but also the magistrates and courtiers, the senate, and all who lived in the royal palace. All, clearly, were caught up in a wondrous pertinacity and most ardent fervor for the investigation of the truth. Nor did the flame of contention stop there, but reached even to the popular crowd and the dregs of the populace. ^B The beginning of the question was from the saying of the true God and our Savior Jesus Christ, whom we find speaking these words to His disciples on the night of the Passion, according to the evangelist John the Theologian: *If you loved me, you would indeed rejoice, because I said to you, I go to the Father; because my Father is greater than I* 2. Therefore it was debated by what reason or in what sense the Father was called greater than Christ.

2. Some indeed most persistently affirmed that this utterance was stated only on account of the cause of the eternal and unoriginated and venerable divinity of the Son in His first birth: and they brought forward for themselves some one of the holy Fathers who had interpreted that saying in such a way; and they judged it not to be endured at all, as some ecclesiastical teachers had understood, namely, that Christ, even on account of His humanity—

^A namely, as having called the Father greater, since Christ is truly both man and God at the same time. Others, however, thought that those words, namely "My Father is greater than I," were to be understood according to His human nature; yet these same people, who thought that that statement was made according to human nature, spread many absurd things about those who taught that Christ spoke thus only on account of the paternal origin of the Son: and they accused them, as if they did not acknowledge Christ as perfect man, or as if they believed Him to be coalesced from one nature, and therefore conspired with the Monophysites. Conversely, those who understood those words also as applying to the man were seen to be refuted, as if they were dividing the one Christ, and, as pleased Nestorius, were introducing two sons, when He is ^B in reality one and individual. And with such discourses and contradictions they were rending the one and indivisible body of the chaste Church, dividing it in two; and the matter was already little removed from manifest schism. For the Senate and the whole multitude of the people were at variance among themselves, while some sided with one party, others with another; and as they conspired with these, they contradicted those; and thus the fora, the roads, the neighborhoods, and the houses were resounding with various arguments. Some also interpreted that saying otherwise, as if the Savior were in a certain manner assuming the person of our human nature; and they understood only a mode of humiliation and condescension; finally, they considered the flesh alone by itself, as if it were not even joined to the divinity, and they prattled other things of this kind, which, after the true knowledge of the matter in controversy and the reconciliation of the Church, were struck with anathema.

3. When the Church was being tossed by these tempests ^C by the blasts of the evil spirit, and he was striving to dissolve the foundations of the faith—that is, Christ, the chief cornerstone who joins together those that are divided—our Emperor, appointed as the governor of the great worldly ship, did not show himself slothful; nor did this guardian of the new Israel slumber, who saw God covered in human flesh, and was seen and saved by God Himself; but as king of peace, and a wise moderator of ecclesiastical discipline and actions ^D, he applied himself to that business with great labor and zeal. And although he sustained the cares of the whole world daily falling upon him like rain, he nonetheless dedicated his entire soul to the task of healing the sick, repairing what was shattered, and bringing all the members back to unity again. Wherefore he also saw to it that the opinions written on this subject by many inspired men and theologians were collected and arranged in order in a book: and these authorities of the saints

he commanded to be distributed to each of the most holy patriarchs, and indeed also to the distinguished men gathered at that time for the divine and sacred synod, and through them to the entire fullness of the Church; which, according to the text, are as follows. ^A

Saint John of Damascus.

4. Of the things said of Christ in a manner befitting a human, whether in words or actions, there are six modes. For some of them are both done and said naturally in accordance with the divine economy; for instance, the birth from the Virgin, the growth and development of age, hunger, thirst, fatigue, tears, sleep, the piercing by nails, death, and such like things—as many as are natural and blameless passions. ^B For in all these there remains indeed the union of the divine nature with the human, yet this is believed to be truly of the body, the divine nature suffering nothing of these, but procuring our salvation through them. Others are by way of simulation, as when he asks concerning Lazarus: "Where have you laid him?" or prays, or withdraws. For he had no need of these, neither as God nor as man; but he shaped them in a human manner according to what necessity and utility required. For instance, he prayed in order to show that he is not opposed to God, and to honor the Father as his cause. He asked, not because he was ignorant, but that he might show that he is in truth man while remaining God. This, finally, was the reason for his withdrawing, that he might teach us not to approach dangers rashly nor to betray ourselves voluntarily. Other things again are said by way of appropriation, such as: ^C "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" and: "The Son himself will be subjected to the Father." For neither as God nor as man was he ever forsaken by the Father, nor did he become sin or a curse, nor does he need to be subjected to the Father. For in as much as he is God he is equal to the Father, and neither an adversary nor subjected; and in as much as he is man, he has never been disobedient to his Begetter. Therefore, appropriating our person and ranking himself with us, he said these things. Other things are said by way of conceptual distinction. For if you separate in thought things that are in truth inseparable, that is, the flesh from the Word, the flesh was servile and ignorant; but because of the hypostatic union with the God-Word, it was neither servile nor ignorant. For the same reason he called the Father his God. Some things, however, he spoke in order to manifest himself to us and to confirm our faith, as when he said: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world was." ^D For he himself was and is glorified; but this glory of his had not yet been revealed and confirmed for us. Other things are by way of appropriation of the Jewish person. And he counted himself with the Jews, as he says to the Samaritan woman: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know; for salvation is from the Jews."

From the Second Oration of Saint Gregory the Theologian on the Son

^A 5. To say that the Father is greater than Christ, in as much as this is understood in this way, is true, yet it is not a great matter. For what is surprising if God is greater than man?

From the disputation of Saint Athanasius which he held in the holy first great synod of Nicaea against Arius

7. Athanasius said: Who, then, are those who grow weary, men or angels? Arius said: Angels are bodiless, so that when they minister, they do not experience fatigue; but for man, it is natural to grow weary on account of the heavy mass of the body. Athanasius said: How, then, did the Lord grow weary? For it is written: "Jesus, therefore, being wearied from his journey, sat down." Arius said: As you wished, you have led me by this example of angels and men to admit that the Word did not grow weary as God, but that it might appear that he had assumed this flesh, which the Word and God did not possess before; for this reason he allowed the flesh to suffer its own [sufferings], so that it might be evident that it is flesh. Athanasius said: Remember that it has been conceded that the Word and God is present everywhere. Arius said: Assuredly. Athanasius said: If, therefore, he is present everywhere, why did he say: "My Father who sent me is greater than I"? Arius said: I beseech you, do not hesitate to quickly remove the veil from the letter. For I am very distressed in spirit. Athanasius said: Who is it that grew weary, man or the Word of God? Arius said: Man. Athanasius said: Then it is for you to understand from this point on. Arius said: I perceive what you mean by this response of yours, namely that since the Word of God is present everywhere, it is entirely certain that he said: "My Father who sent me is greater than I," on account of the flesh. For the flesh was walking and growing weary and ^C moving from one place to another. Truly, this is correctly held.

From the sermon of Saint Amphilochius against the Arianizers

7. For this reason I speak using both sublime and lowly words; so that on the one hand by means of the sublime words I may demonstrate the nobility of the indwelling Word, and by means of the lowly words I may make known the weaknesses of the accompanying flesh. And again: At one time I call myself equal to the Father, and at another I say the Father is greater; and I do not contradict myself, but I [present] myself as God and man.

^A God from the heights, and man from the lowly. But let not your heart be troubled, because I said to you, *My Father is greater than I:* for He is greater than the one who is going to Him, not than the One who is in Him. For as God I am in the Father, so that as man I am going to the Father. Therefore, the Father is greater than that one who is going to Him, not than the One who is always in Him. And to bring my words to a brief summary, He is at once greater and equal: greater than the one asking, "How many loaves have you?" equal to the One who satisfies the whole multitude with five loaves; greater than the one asking, "Where have you laid Lazarus?" equal to the One who raises Lazarus by a word; greater than the one saying, "Who touched me?" equal to the One who dries up the unceasing flow of the woman with the issue of blood; greater than the one sleeping in the boat, equal to the One who rebukes the sea; ^B greater than the one judged by Pilate; equal to the One who frees the world from damnation; greater than the one who endured the slap and the cross with the robbers; equal to the One who justified the robber gratuitously; greater than the one stripped of his garment; equal to the One who adorns the soul; greater than the one given vinegar to drink; equal to the One who makes His own blood out of wine; greater than the one who underwent the destruction of the temple (that is, His own body); equal to the One who raised up His own temple (that is, His body); greater, I say, than the former, equal to the latter. And again: "I will no longer talk much with you." You see, heretic, than whom the Father is greater: [He is greater] than the one who says, "I will no longer talk much with you," not than the One who says, "I will not leave you orphans; for I am with you always, even unto the end of the age." "The ruler of the world comes, and in me he finds nothing." You see than whom He is greater: than the one judged before the eyes of the rulers, not than the One who made the world. "Rise, let us go hence." You see than whom the Father is greater: than the one saying, "Let us go," not than the One saying, "I will dwell in you and walk among you." "I am the true vine." You see than whom the Father is greater: than the one saying, "I am the vine," not than the One who says, "I planted a true vine."

From the homily of Saint Cyril on the Palms.

8. But although our rational nature was united ^C hypostatically to the Word, it was not, however, made equal. For how can it be, that a created thing be made equal to the pre-eternal? That which had a beginning, to that which is without beginning? And a little later, "How," he says, "are 'I and the Father one'?" By the birth above, before the ages. "How, 'My Father is greater than I'?" By the birth below, from the Virgin.

From the same [author's] sermon to the queens.

9. How then is He minor to the angels, who is worshipped by them, and who shares the throne of the kingdom with the Father; ^D

^A The answer is ready: for since He possessed a body capable of dying, He stooped to the infirmities of human nature and therein underwent a voluntary death as if it were His own. It was, moreover, because of this death and passion that He merited a crown of highest glory; for being Himself Life and Incorruptibility, He abolished death and spoiled corruption of all its power. When, therefore, he names Jesus, and declares Him to be minor to the angels, we must not conceive in our minds a man considered simply and apart by himself; but rather the Only-Begotten Himself, who, for the order of the incarnation, yields the superior place to the angels. For He who is declared to give way to their excellence is recognized as truly having been made man. That pre-eminence of the holy angels consists chiefly in this, that they are immune to flesh and are not susceptible to death: yet the Son was subjected to these infirmities on account of His voluntary self-emptying. Verily, He who is said to be "a little lower than the angels" on account of the state of human nature, existing [as He does] in the excellence of His deity, is worshipped by them and sits upon those thrones of majesty which they surround with veneration, extolling Him with tireless praise and naming Him Lord of the powers. ^B

Of Saint John Chrysostom against Arius, and on the Annunciation of the Theotokos, the homily which begins: "On the preceding Sunday."

Of the same, from the interpretations of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

From the homily of Saint Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, on the text: "The Father who sent Me is greater than I."

I do not say it, he says, but I believe the One who speaks. For He Himself says: "The Father who sent Me is greater than I." If you believe the One who speaks, now desist from the contention, and I too shall restrain my tongue, and let us allow the Son Himself to interpret His own statement. Tell me then, O Lord, why at one time do You say: "I and the Father are one," but at another: "The Father who sent Me is greater than I?" If He is greater, how is He equal? If He is equal, how is He greater? I assert both, He says: for He is both greater than I and equal to Me: namely, equal according to the divinity, greater according to the economy. I am equal to Him, inasmuch as I was begotten of Him; He is greater than I, inasmuch as I was born of the Virgin. ^B

Ex epistola S. Leonis papæ Romani, quæ dicitur columna rectæ fidei. *From the letter of Saint Leo, Pope of Rome, which is called the pillar of the true faith.*

13. Thus, it is not of the same nature to say: "I and the Father are one," and to say: "The Father is greater than I." For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man; yet it is one thing whence the reproach is common to both, and another whence the glory is common. For from us is the humanity in Him which is lesser than the Father; from the Father is the divinity in Him which is equal to the Father.

*Saint Anastasius’s Seventh Chapter from the Sixteen Against the Monophysites.*

14. Those who philosophically, or rather unphilosophically, say that the flesh was deified and made equal to the Word of God, let them tell us, if the flesh, after the union with the Word of God, has become intangible, invisible, and ^C uncircumscribed. But if this is so, then the incarnation is nothing but a fantasy and an apparition. But if it does not possess these qualities, how has it been made equal to the uncircumscribed and invisible?

*From the discourse of Saint Gregory of Nyssa on the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and on Abraham.*

15. Since, therefore, the Word says that He cannot do it, it is clear that He does not attribute the inability to the divinity of the Only-begotten Son, but testifies that the inability belongs to the weakness of our nature. For the flesh is weak, as it is written: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Therefore, the divine Scripture speaks the truth ^D through both, both confessing the greater and not denying the equal. For when the Word looks toward the human nature, He declares the One who is not seen to be greater than the One who was seen through the flesh; but when He guides the mind toward the divinity, this comparative juxtaposition of greater and lesser ceases, and instead of this, unity is proclaimed: "I and the Father are one." For those things which vary according to inequality cannot be one.

^A 16. Acknowledge the twofold substance of Christ; the divine, I mean, which exists equal to the Father; and the human, than which the Father is greater.

Of St. Augustine

Of the Damascene, chapter 100

17. And so the Word has been made flesh, and has not departed from His own immateriality; and He is wholly incarnate, and wholly uncircumscribed. He is reduced corporally and contracted, and is divinely uncircumscribed, His flesh not being co-extended to the infinity of His divinity. He is therefore wholly perfect God, yet His totality is not God; for He is not only God, but also man. He is wholly perfect man, yet His totality is not man; for He is not only man, but also God.

From the first book of the Treasures of St. Cyril, from the eleventh chapter

18. When Christ calls the Father greater than Himself, the statement will again be appropriate to His humanity, and it does not damage His divine essence, as though it were inferior to its Begetter. And further on: "The Son, therefore, is equal and consubstantial with the Father." We believe that the Father is called greater than the Son for the sake of the incarnation; for when He appeared having become man, then He also said this as a man.

From the same, in the seventh discourse to Hermias

19. For by a hypostatic union, ineffably conjoined, the Word out of God is understood as Christ; superior indeed to humanity, as being by nature God and Son; yet diminished ^C slightly below the glory worthy of God, as man. Wherefore He said at one time: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." And, "I and the Father are one." But at another time, "The Father is greater than I."

Of St. Gregory the Theologian, from his first discourse on the Son

20. And do you enumerate for me the words of ingratitude: "My God and your God," the "greater," the "He created," "He sanctified." And after a few words: For each of these it is not difficult to explain, by going through them point by point, in the most pious sense and to remove the stumbling block which exists in the letters, if indeed you are truly stumbling, and are not rather sinning on ^D purpose. But to speak in summary: attribute the more sublime statements to the divinity and to the nature devoid of passions and body, and the humbler ones to the composite man and to Him who for your sake was emptied and incarnate.

From the same, from the same discourse

21. What reason, then, forbids the creature from being called...

Wisdom according to the earthly birth, and the Son according to the first and more incomprehensible one? ^A

Of St. John of Damascus, to those who ask whether the person of Christ is created or uncreated. Chapter 127 (22).

22. The ^B person of God the Word was, before the incarnation, simple and uncompounded and bodiless and uncreated. But having become incarnate, it became also a person to the flesh and became composite from the divinity, which it always possessed, and from the flesh which it assumed; and it bears the properties of the two natures, being recognized in two natures. So that it is itself one person, uncreated in its divinity, and created in its humanity, both visible and invisible. For otherwise we are brought into such straits that we must either divide the one same Christ by asserting two persons, or, by denying the distinction of the natures, introduce conversion and confusion. ^C

Chapter 106 of the same, concerning the properties of the natures (23).

23. Furthermore, while we confess the same Lord of ours, Jesus Christ, to be perfect God and perfect man, we profess that the same one has everything that the Father has, except for the property of being unbegotten; and [that he has] everything that the first Adam had, except only for sin—these being body and a soul endowed with reason and intellect. And it follows, as is consistent with two natures, that he possesses twofold natural properties of the two natures: two natural wills, divine and human; and two natural operations, divine and human; and two natural powers of free will, divine and human; and finally a twofold wisdom and knowledge, divine and human. For being consubstantial with God and the Father, He wills and acts freely as God; and being also consubstantial with us, the same One wills and acts freely as man. For His are the miracles, and His also are the sufferings. ^D

From the second epistle of the holy pope of Rome, Leo, to the emperor Leo, the inscription of which is: "To the most glorious and most tranquil son, Augustus Leo, Leo the bishop."

24. In the true Son of God and man, there is one person of the Word and the flesh, which has communal actions inseparably and indivisibly. The qualities of these works must, however, be understood, and it must be discerned by the contemplation of sincere faith to what the humility of the flesh is advanced, and to what the loftiness of the divinity is inclined; and what it is that the flesh does not do without the Word, and what it is that the Word does not accomplish without the flesh? For without the power of the Word the Virgin would neither have conceived nor given birth; and without the truth of the flesh, infancy, wrapped in swaddling clothes, would not have lain there. Without the power of the Word the Magi would not have adored the child, declared by the star as his index; and

without the truth of the flesh, the child would not have been ordered to be carried off to Egypt, nor would he have been withdrawn from the persecution under Herod. ^A And without the power of the Word the voice of the Father, released from the heavens, would not have said, *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased*; and without the truth of the body, John would not have testified: *Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.* And without the power of the Word, the healing of the infirm and the quickening of the dead would not have happened; and without the truth of the flesh, neither food for one fasting, nor sleep, would have been necessary for the weary. And finally, without the power of the Word, the Lord would not have professed himself equal to the Father; and without the truth of the body, he would not have said that the Father was greater than himself: seeing that the catholic faith receives both, and defends both, which, according to the confession of the blessed apostle Peter, believes one Christ, the Son of the living God, to be both man and Word. Even though, therefore, from that beginning from which the Word was made flesh in the womb of the Virgin—that is, took on flesh—there has never been any division between the two forms; and through all corporeal growth the actions of the whole of time have belonged to one person; yet those things which have been done inseparably, we confuse by no commixture; but we perceive from the quality of the works to which form each belongs. ^B

Confessor Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria

25. Consider, therefore, as many humble words and deeds as are written as pertaining to the body of the Son; but refer the glorious words to the divinity of the Word. When he hungers after fasting, it is an infirmity of the body; but when from five loaves he satisfies five thousand men, besides children and women, and fills twelve baskets with fragments, this proceeds from the divinity of the Word. When he sleeps in the boat with his head reclined, it is a property of bodily rest; but when, walking upon the sea, he commands the waves and the winds, saying, "Be silent, be muzzled," ^C he immediately hears those in the boat affirming with an oath: *Truly you are the Son of God.* When he stands by the grave of Lazarus and weeps; and when, near to his passion, he says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death, and [it] is troubled*; and he says the spirit of his divinity is ready for every work of the incarnation, but the flesh is weak—this is clearly the infirmity of the body, which is sorrowful and troubled; but when he says imperatively: *Lazarus, come forth*, and he who had been dead four days, already decaying (a thing which had never happened since the foundation of the world), rises alive again, this is a demonstration of his divinity. ^D

From St. Cyril’s ninth book of the work On Adoration in Spirit. Ch. 26 (26).

26. Therefore, human nature cannot equal the excellences of the divinity; indeed, it is very far from doing so. For this reason, he spoke as one who had become and is perceived as being like us: *My Father is greater than I* (John 14:28), even though in the nature of his divinity he is equal in measure and in no way inferior to the excellence of the Progenitor.

Of St. Cyril (27).

27. ^A For is it not written regarding him that, with respect to humanity and the better nature—that is, the Gospel one—he might be understood to be lowered a little below the glory of those [the angels]? It is true. For Paul says: *We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor* (Heb. 2:9). Tell me then, what happened that the inhabitants of the heavenly city, who nevertheless possess the better nature and have obtained a knowledge of God that is in every way unerring and free from false reasoning, should make him—who is by nature inferior and falls short of their own glory—an object of worship? I ask you to explain this; indeed, it is now your part to do so. Therefore, if he is the same person, being both inferior and incomparably excellent, we shall easily attribute to his humanity that which is inferior and fittingly falls to it (for the nature of man stands far apart from the angels), while to his divinity, which transcends all things, we shall acknowledge it to be superior and exalted above created things, and that it transcends in essence all rational substance and every name that is named. But if the Word, even without flesh and not yet as if inserted into humanity, were to be considered inferior to the angels themselves, then it would be a marvel indeed that he should be a worshiper of his own creatures; ^B nor would our defense be able to assist or support him. But if to say and think these things is both impious and most fallacious, and he is "inferior" [only] because he is man, then it must surely follow that one should think this, namely, that he is a worshiper insofar as he is man.

Of the same (28).

28. Since they rise up against the apostolic saying as if it referred to an ordinary man, ^D come, let us take the whole sentence from the beginning and repeat it, insofar as it pertains to the proposed subject. It is therefore written: *We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.* And a little further on: *For behold, and very clearly indeed,* when he says he was made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and for that reason was crowned with glory and honor, he makes manifest the person of whom he spoke, namely the Only-Begotten; for he says he was made a participant of flesh and blood just as we are.

^A 29. But even while bearing flesh, he permits it to suffer the infirmities of nature, namely to thirst, to rest, and to labor; and finally, when he comes to the cross, he permits it to suffer those things which are proper to the flesh. For this reason, streams of sweat flowed down from it, and an angel was found sustaining it; and he is grieved and troubled. For even before saying these things, he says: "My soul is troubled," [John 12:27] and, "My soul is sorrowful unto death." [Matt. 26:38]

30. But Christ possessed a body pure from sins, not foreign to natural necessities; for otherwise it would not have been a body.

^B 31. As man, therefore, he hesitates; as man he is troubled. For his power and his divinity are not troubled, but the soul is troubled and torn according to the assumption of human fragility.

32. Equal, therefore, in the form of God, but lesser in the assumption of flesh and in the passion of man. For how could the same nature be both lesser and equal? And how, if it is lesser, does it do the same things in the same way that the Father does? For in what way could the same operation be of a different power? Can the lesser operate in the same way as the greater? Or can there be one operation where there is a different substance? Therefore, accept that Christ, according to his divinity, cannot be called lesser.

^C 33. And in showing that a single operation cannot exist for a different power, and that the lesser cannot perform the works of the greater, and that where there is a different substance, an operation cannot be understood to be one, the great Ambrose demonstrates by manifest proofs that the divinity and humanity of Christ cannot have one natural operation, even though they are known to be of one person and are seen to operate with the communion of the one with the other. Where, therefore, a major and a minor operation is spoken of, it is not about one, but about the two natural operations of the one Christ. ^D And indeed, the sixth synod by its decree confirmed these things which Saint Ambrose had written. But the fifth synod thus acclaimed this opinion and the others of the holy gathered Fathers: "We accept all that has been set forth by them concerning the right faith for the condemnation of heretics." And a little later: "And if anyone withdraws himself from their consensus, thinking the contrary,"

^A he is on that account to be regarded as alienating himself from the right faith and enumerating himself among the heretics, and is justly condemned and anathematized by the holy Church of God.

From the synodal letters which our holy Father Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, sent to Rome, concerning the incarnate economy of the one of the holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

34. We profess one Christ and Son, the Word made flesh; and we call his subsistence composite; and we confess him in two natures, wills, and operations. We also believe in two births of the same Word of God: the one from God the Father, which we know to be timeless and eternal; and the second from the Mother of God, which we recognize as recent and temporal. And we affirm that the properties of the natures are preserved, that is to say, two natural wills and two natural operations. And insofar as he is God, we declare that he is consubstantial with the Father: ^B but insofar as he is man, we declare that he is consubstantial with his Mother and with us; the same one being both visible and invisible, created and likewise uncreated, corporeal and incorporeal, tangible and intangible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, earthly and heavenly, possessing flesh endowed with a rational soul and at the same time divinity, recent and eternal, humble and supreme, and whatever else is found in the dual nature inseparably. And the sublime things he always possessed, as possessing an eternal nature; but the humble things he assumed unchangeably for our sake in the last times, because of the human nature he took upon himself. Wherefore he is found to be one ^C and yet two at the same time: one, indeed, according to subsistence and person, but two according to the natures themselves and their natural properties, namely, will and operation. For each form operates that which is its own with mutual communion: so that the Word performs what is proper to the Word with the communion of the body; and the body performs what is proper to the body, not without the cooperation of the Word. Furthermore, of these, one shines forth in miracles, while the other endures insults.

From Saint Basil on the text, "I am the vine." ^D

35. Here the heretics attack me and say: "If the Savior is the vine, we are the branches, and the Father is the husbandman, and if the branches are of the same nature as the vine, but the vine is not consubstantial with the husbandman; then the Son is of the same nature as we are, and we are a part of him; but the Son is not of the same nature as the Father, but is in all respects alien." To whom we shall respond: Christ did not call us the branches of his divinity, but of his flesh; according to him who said: "For we are the body of Christ and members in particular." And again:

^A And again: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" I do not, therefore, refer these words to the divinity of the Word, but to his human advent: "I am the vine." For we, according to the body, are kin to the Lord. And he himself said for this reason: "I will declare your name to my brethren." And just as the branches are consubstantial with the vine and proceed from it, so we, having bodies homogeneous with the body of Christ, receive from his fullness; and we have that as the root of resurrection and salvation. And the Father is called the husbandman; for he himself cultivated the vine through the Word, which is the humanity of the Savior; and he himself through the same Word prepared for us the way to the kingdom.

Chrysostom, from the homily on the holy Gospel according to John.

^B 36. "If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And, No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." He did not here call the flesh the Son of man, but from the lesser substance, he named himself entirely, if I may so put it; for it is his custom to do this, often calling himself the Whole. ^C And whereas it seemed to some that the interpretation of the evangelical saying ought to be drawn towards the general nature of men, the Emperor, instructed by heavenly light, happened upon the dialogue of the great and most theological Athanasius held with Arius, for the purpose of refuting him who divided the holy and consubstantial Trinity into unequal natures, and who said the only-begotten Son was inferior to the Father, and who abused this very evangelical saying for the defense of his own heresy. The Emperor therefore brought forth the very words of Athanasius, who was debating against Arius: "Who is it that grew weary? Man or God the Word?" Arius said: "Man." Athanasius said: "Then it is yours to understand." Arius said: ^D "I perceive what you understand by this answer of yours; namely, that since God the Word is present everywhere, it is manifest that he said, 'My Father who sent me is greater than I,' on account of the flesh. For this walked, and became weary, and traveled from place to place." Truly, this holds correctly.

And thus, ^A in saying these things, the interpreter did not explain them as referring to Christ according to his divine substance, but specifically according to the flesh which he had put on, which is subject to the natural and blameless passions. And Arius agreed with him in this, yielding that the Father could be called greater than Christ in so far as he is man. Hence the Emperor concluded, validly and unshakably, that the great Athanasius did not at all refer that saying of Christ, "The Father is greater," to the general nature of men. For how, indeed, could his adversary Arius—a man most sharp in such matters and most skillful in dissecting discourses—have allowed this great man to speak of some other individual, saying of him that the Father was greater, ^B while he himself was inquiring about Christ, and saying that the Father was greater than the Only-begotten according to his very nature? For this would be the same as if those needing scythes, hearing that mattocks were being denied them, would be in no way offended, but would instead accept it as an answer. But neither would the Fathers of the first Council of Nicaea have otherwise refuted the heresy of this Arius against the Only-begotten Word, which took its name from him (for he applied to the Word, according to his divine substance, the sayings: "He created me," and "Faithful to Him who made Him," and "The Apostle and High Priest of our confession"), had they not referred such sayings to the humanity of Christ. For regarding the divine nature they brought forward, "In the beginning was the Word," and, "I and the Father are one," and things similar to these.

38. To this excellent and demonstrative argument, the most divine Emperor added yet another confirmation, restricting and subtly explaining the sayings of the saints so that they might be understood opportunely, as was fitting. For he said: "When some of the defenders of the Church, the Fathers, are found explaining that saying ^C according to the cause of the heavenly generation, they are at that time speaking theologically about the person of the Only-begotten Son of God, so as to stop the mouths of their adversaries who bring a difference into the one and same nature; for the Fathers themselves affirm that the nature of the Son does not differ from that of the Father, nor does the Father occupy a greater rank, as if he had a difference of substance or nature. But although the Father is said by the Son to be greater, they refer such a statement to the eternal origin and cause—that is, to the ineffable and inexplicable generation—speaking personally of the Only-begotten Son of God; and they say the phrase is to be understood in that way alone. But when they look to the incarnation of the Only-begotten Word, and turn the conversation to the natures joined without confusion, and wish to define the difference between them, ^D then they also apply this saying to the humanity of Christ." The great theologian Gregory was therefore brought forward here, who, after the prior interpretation according to the cause of the divine generation, added this also: "For to say that"

^A Christ, insofar as he is understood as man, is greater than the Father; this is true indeed, but it is not a great thing. For what is there to marvel at, if God is greater than man?" Then also the most holy Pope Leo of the elder Rome, discoursing on this saying, states thus: "Without the power of the Word," he says, "the voice of the Father sent from heaven would not have said, *This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased*; and without the truth of the flesh, John would not have testified, *Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world*." And thus, in order, each of the Fathers, whose authorities are written above, was in the mouth of the Emperor, as if he carried their words inscribed upon his tongue.

39. Nor did the Emperor, tireless in both body and mind, stop here, but bringing forward some other reflection of his own, he added to the previous points ^B to clarify, in accordance with the undivided Hypostasis, the difference of the natures united in Christ. For since the holy flesh of the Lord, after the divinity assumed it, was endowed with glorious gifts; for this reason some were not using them without danger of error, such that they were generating new arguments regarding the natural and blameless sufferings of the Lord, and did not at all dare to affirm that the flesh assumed by Christ was passible according to the very nature of flesh, abusing to this end the argument that Christ suffered voluntarily for us, so as to exempt it from natural suffering and mortality; against these, I say, the Emperor opposed the opinion he had devised, which we shall now state. For, disputing about idioms and glorious gifts, and accurately distinguishing between each matter, he clearly explained which are idioms and which, in turn, are glorious gifts. He maintained, beyond doubt, that idioms are proper to a nature. And he said that the idioms of the divine and blessed nature in the monarchical Trinity are to be uncircumscribed, uncreated, eternal, and other properties of this sort; while the glorious gifts accompanying these idioms are omnipotence, the power of vivifying, and other ornaments of this kind. Then he concluded that the Lord's flesh was altogether endowed with the glorious gifts of the divine Only-begotten by whom it was assumed, namely, with the power of vivifying and with omnipotence; yet not with the idioms of His divine nature. For even if it has glorious gifts, the flesh is not, on that account, uncircumscribed, or uncreated, or before time. Therefore, since each nature remains unconfused in its proper idioms; from this, he says, it is possible to perceive to what that epithet "greater," about which there is now a controversy, pertains; and one ought to attribute a more sublime grade to the idioms of the divine nature, following a comparison with the properties of the flesh.

40. These, then, were the propositions and conclusions of the imperial mind, or rather, to speak more truly, of the king of human minds, and the utterances of a tongue more golden than sweetness itself and honey. And since he had spent many sleepless nights and many days in deep thought, and judged it necessary that the orthodox [doctrine] should be clarified through explanation,

^B so that the hearts of those who are weaker might not be troubled by its ambiguity, he finally assembled the most holy patriarchs and the sacred and divine synod; nor were those of the senatorial council absent. There were also present the superiors of all the most illustrious monasteries. The Caesar, for his part, sat upon the royal throne, which is in the chamber facing the sea in the Great Palace, recently constructed by the Caesar himself, which overlooks the western wall of the city; this chamber bears the name of Manuel himself. In this place, the art of painting had depicted—as best it could, by interspersing various colors with golden tesserae—innumerable victories of the Emperor, brought together in a brief circuit. This was the place of the consistory, and there what we set down hereafter was determined, with the most holy patriarchs, the most sacred archbishops, the rest of the priestly assembly, and all the senators consenting with one another, by the grace of the God of peace and through the ardent zeal of our pious and God-crowned Emperor. Regarding these matters, a tome was also written, in which the following things are contained literally.

ACT II

The second day of the month of March, the fourth day of the indiction XIV.

1. The God-crowned, holy King and Emperor of ours, Lord Manuel Comnenus, presiding ^C in the tropical chamber facing southward, namely in the Porphyromanueline triclinium of the Great Palace; there stood by his sacred majesty: his beloved cousins, the sons of the illustrious sebastocrator, Lord Andronicus, namely the protosebast and protovestiary, Lord John Comnenus, and his brother, Lord Alexius Comnenus; the beloved cousin of our powerful and holy King, Lord Andronicus Comnenus, son of the pansebast, the most high Lord Theodore Batatzes; his brother and beloved cousin of our powerful and holy King, Lord Alexius Comnenus; the beloved paternal cousin of our powerful and holy King, born of the beloved paternal uncle of our powerful and holy King, the pansebast, most high Lord Constantine Angelus, namely Lord John Ducas; the brother of the same, beloved nephew of our powerful and holy King, Lord Andronicus Ducas; son-in-law of our powerful and holy King, the sebast, Lord John Cantacuzenus; son-in-law of our powerful and holy King, Lord Constantine Ducas; the sebast, Lord Gudelius Tzicandiles; the sebast and great heteriarch, Lord George Palaeologus; the sebast, Lord John Ducas; the sebast and domestic vestiary of our powerful and holy King, Lord Alexius Petraliphas; the sebast and domestic vestiary of our powerful and holy King, Lord Isaac Ducas; the sebast and domestic vestiary of our powerful and holy King and chartulary, Lord Andronicus Lombardus; proto-

nobilissimo et eparcho Basilio Camatero; nobilissimo Isaacio Acolutho; nobilissimo et primicerio bardariotarum Basilio Tripsycho et non paucis aliis.

^B 2. When the most holy patriarchs were in council—the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, Lord Lucas; the most holy patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, Lord Athanasius; and the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Lord Nicephorus—and there were also present the most holy archbishops: Michael of Heraclea, Basil of Cyzicus, Michael of Nicomedia, Nicetas of Amasea, Nicetas of Melitene, John of Gangra, Christophorus of Myra, Theodorus of Corinth, Nicolaus of Athens, Lucas of Mocesus, John of Crete, Michael of Trebizond, John of Larissa, Basil of Philippopolis, Leo of Rhodes, John of Philippi, Leo of Adrianople, Georgius of Hierapolis, Pothus of Mitylene, Euthymius of Neopatras, Constantinus of Euchaita, John of Amastris, John of Thebes, Theodorus of Serres, John of Aenus, Leo of Dristra, Constantinus of Corcyra, Michael of Abydus, Nicolaus of Methymna, Nicetas of Lacedaemonia, Theodorus of Mesembria, Nicetas of Miletus, Nicetas of Maroneia, Constantinus of Arcadiopolis, Nicolaus of Parium, Isaacius of Proconnesus, Theodulus of Selybria, John of Dercus, and Stephanus of Anchialus; and with them stood the God-beloved ecclesiastical officials.

^C 3. Since a few days ago a discussion arose among some people regarding how the saying, "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), is to be understood, today, by the command of My Majesty, those archbishops who are dwelling in the great city assembled and were asked how such an evangelical text ought to be understood.

Therefore, the archbishop of Heraclea, being the first asked if the words, "The Father is greater than I," spoken by our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, were given to the Father as "greater" also according to the created nature in which He also suffered, acknowledged this, and said that he also accepted the other interpretations of this saying provided by the holy Fathers. The bishop of Cyzicus said he was of the same opinion as the bishop of Heraclea. The bishop of Nicomedia said: "Since I contemplate one and indivisible Christ, even after the ineffable incarnation, in two natures, unconfused and inconvertible, namely uncreated and created, impassible and passible, I understand the evangelical saying, 'The Father is greater than I,' refers indeed also to His created and passible nature; yet I also accept the other interpretations of this saying which the luminaries of the Church have spoken." The bishop of Amasea said he went along with the opinion of the bishop of Nicomedia. The bishop of Melitene said: "Hearing our Lord Jesus Christ saying in the Gospels, 'The Father is greater than I,' I say that He said this also according to the ^D created nature in Him." The bishop of Gangra said: "Hearing the Lord saying, 'My Father is greater than I,' I say that He said this also according to the created nature in Him."

The bishop of Myra said: "As St. Basil, and Gregory the Theologian, and Chrysostom interpret this, so also do I interpret and accept this saying; and since many other saints have also said that it was spoken economically ^A by Christ Himself, insofar as He became man, I do not oppose them either."

4. The bishop of Corinth said: "He called the Father greater, inasmuch as He emptied Himself, and of His own will the most High descended even to the body, and deigned to take on flesh without confusion, without change, without division, and economically accepted the like blameless passions; and death, which is saving for us and the cause of our resurrection, for which we previously had no hope." The bishop of Athens said: "Our Savior God, having become through ineffable mercy also perfect man, since the God-Man Word is one hypostasis and one person, because of the extreme union of the two natures, I learn from the saints that, as hypostasis, He ^B is not conjoined to the Father and the Spirit, nor to the mother and us; but according to the humanity, by which He shares with the mother and with us, I think He said the Father is greater, and I also embrace the sayings of the saints concerning such a statement." The bishop of Mocesos said: "He calls the Father greater than Himself, just as the holy synods and the holy Apostle have said. I say, therefore, that He said the Father is greater inasmuch as the Son took to Himself flesh and blood similar to ours, and according to the created nature in Him, ^C in which He also suffered." The bishop of Crete said: "For my part, accepting all the sayings of the saints regarding, 'My Father is greater than I,' I do not reject the one that understands it as spoken according to the human, that is, according to the created nature in Him, Christ, in which He also suffered; agreeing and concurring with my colleague of Heraclea, and embracing the things stated by the synods." The bishop of Trebizond said the same as the bishop of Crete. The bishop of Larissa said: "The words, 'My Father is greater than I,' we find from the saints—from ^D Gregory the Theologian, from the great Basil, and from Chrysostom—interpreted both according to the causative quality and the honor of the Father, and as having been spoken for the comfort of the disciples. But since I know it is affirmed by some of the saints that the Lord spoke thus also on account of the humanity to which He humbled Himself, and in order to provide proof of His human nature, I also embrace this opinion."

5. The bishop of Rhodes said: "Since I know the God-Man Word spoke many things economically, such as that, 'But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son,' I say that He said also, 'My Father is greater than I,' economically—that is, according to the created nature in Him; and I accede also to the interpretation of the saints concerning this saying,"

^A The Bishop of Philippopolis said: "Since I arrived here from my church yesterday, and have not yet been able to obtain the authorities of the saints concerning the disputed saying, I declare that I assent to the opinions which our illuminators and teachers have brought forward; namely, that Christ either honors the Father divinely because of His heavenly birth, or speaks as a human being because of His birth from the ever-Virgin, by reason of which He shared in flesh and blood just as we do, having assumed a created and passible nature, in which He also suffered." The Bishop of Philippi said: "Because Christ is twofold from His divine and human nature, He called the Father 'greater' according to His humanity, and because of the causative quality and the honor of the Father; although He is equal to Him according to His divinity." ^B The Bishop of Hadrianopolis said: "He who supernaturally shared in flesh and blood, and manifested a certain new theandric operation among us—not that He was not man, but as one from among men who is yet above men—called the Father 'greater' than Himself, just as the great Chrysostom and Isidore of Pelusium have interpreted, and indeed also the most godly Cyril. I say, however, that He said this also in so far as He was man, because of His created nature, in which He also suffered." The Bishop of Hierapolis said that he entirely acceded to the opinion of the Bishop of Heraclea and the Bishop of Crete. The Bishop of Mitylene said: "Since I find the great Apostle saying that 'the Son of God emptied Himself, remaining inexhausted, when He took the form of a servant,' ^C I say that the Savior called the Father 'greater' according to His humanity—that is, His condescension and emptying—just as the wonder-worker, the great Gregory, teaches me, along with Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Cyril, and Saint Athanasius; namely, according to that nature of His which walked and grew weary." ^D The Bishop of Neopatras said: "I understand the humble saying, 'My Father is greater than I,' as having been uttered by the Only-Begotten for the same reason that He attributed other more humble things to Himself; namely, to attest His incarnation, and that He truly became man." The Bishop of Euchaita said: "I say that He spoke thus according to the causative quality and the honor of the Father, and for the consolation of the disciples, and because of our flesh which He had assumed, having shared in flesh and blood just as we do." The Bishop of Amastris said: "I reject no saying from the saints, but accept them all; and according to these I understand that our Lord Jesus Christ said, 'My Father is greater than I,' also according to His humanity; and by 'humanity' I mean the condescension, the emptying, the humiliation, and the sharing of our flesh and blood; and according to Saint Athanasius, because of the created nature in Him which labored and grew weary, and in which He also suffered." The Bishop of Thebes said: "Since I know the Son to be creator and co-author of all things with the Father—for through Him He made the ages—as equal...

I deem the Son to the Father. But since He said: *My Father is greater than I*, and it was proposed the day before that we inquire what the mind of some of the saints had been on this matter, I judge that this was said by Christ also according to His humanity and humiliation and the wonderful descent to the human nature which He assumed, in which He partook of flesh and blood no differently than we do." ^B The Bishop of Serres ^C said: "Since this evangelical saying, *My Father is greater than I*, has been interpreted in various ways by various holy Fathers; and since some of these have also affirmed that it was uttered according to His humanity, I receive and embrace all the expressions of the holy Fathers, and especially this one which refers the saying to the humanity. Furthermore, by humanity I understand the created nature in Christ, in which He communicated in flesh and blood just as we do." ^D The words of our Savior Jesus Christ sometimes regard His humanity, and at other times direct the understanding toward His divinity. When, therefore, He was aiming at His humanity, then the Savior confessed the Father to be greater than Himself, confirming the faith of the incarnation. But I affirm this in such a way that I do not reject the other opinions of the saints. The Bishop of Dristra had at first said that he agreed with the Metropolitan of Athens; but afterward, having heard the opinion of the most reverend Great Oeconomus, he said that he was departing from the mind of the Athenian and approaching the opinion of the most reverend one, and following it. ^A The Bishop of Corfu said: "We find in the Gospels that the Lord speaks of the Father as greater than Himself, and also as His God, when He says: *My God and your God*. I consider both expressions to have equal force. Since, however, the Damascene says that the Father is called His God by the Lord humanly, with mental distinction, I judge that for the same reason He was also called greater than Himself. And at the same time, I receive all the opinions of the holy Fathers on this subject who have also referred the saying to the humanity." The Bishop of Abydos said: "I, knowing this saying of the Lord to have been explained variously by the holy Fathers and doctors of the Church, say that Christ said it also as man, ^B inasmuch as He partook of flesh and blood just as we do. I also follow the opinion of the bishop of Heraclea and the bishop of Nicomedia." The Bishop of Methymna had said that he followed the opinion of the Bishop of Corfu; but having afterward heard the opinions of the patriarchs, he changed his mind and said that he was departing from the opinion of the Bishop of Corfu, and adhering to those of the most holy patriarchs. ^{C D} The Bishop of Lacedaemon said that he venerates and receives the interpretations of the holy Fathers—namely, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, and Chrysostom—regarding the saying, *My Father is greater than I*; I say, moreover, that the flesh endowed with reason and soul was assumed by the Lord for the sake of our salvation

and according to this he says the Father is greater than himself. ^A The Bishop of Mesembria said that he conforms to the opinion of the Bishop of Heraclea. The Bishop of Miletus said: "I understand the saying, *My Father is greater than I*, as being taken also according to that which is human in Christ, not according to glory, not according to honor, not according to dignity, not according to power, not according to authority, nor according to anything else that belongs to divine glory and majesty, but according to that which is created in him, in which he also suffered. Since I have also heard the opinion of my fellow bishop of Nicomedia, and it is correct, I also subscribe to it in all respects." The Bishop of Maronia said: "Since I find the great Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Chrysostom, and holy Isidore saying, one referring it to honor, another to the causative quality, another to the consolation of the disciples, I accept these and embrace them. Furthermore, I also accept those who hold that this was said by Christ economically—that is, humanly—so as to signify his passible and created nature, in which he truly suffered."

^B The Bishop of Arcadiopolis said: "How the Lord and our God Jesus Christ said, *My Father is greater than I*, he himself knows, for he is the one who also knows how he became man. But in as much as grace was measured out from above to each of the divinely inspired holy Fathers, they interpreted the saying under divine inspiration; and through as many ways as they have interpreted it, I reject none of these in any way at all, but rather all of them, and almost all have said that the Lord said this also according to his humanity, and I embrace ^C this and accept it. Since, however, I see him as one and the same according to hypostasis, but two according to the difference of the two natures in him, I understand the Lord to be saying that the Father is greater than him with respect to the created nature of the flesh that is in him, in which he also suffered." The Bishop of Parius said: "Since I find some of the teachers of the Church interpreting *My Father is greater than I* in various ways, and indeed also according to humanity, I praise all the opinions; by humanity, however, I mean the flesh in him which he took for himself from us." The Bishop of Proconnesus had said that he followed the opinion of the Bishop of Athens; but having heard the opinions of the most holy patriarchs, he changed his view and said that he departed from the opinion of the Bishop of Athens ^D and followed the opinions of the most holy patriarchs. The Bishop of Selybria said: "Having read the interpretation of the holy Cyril regarding *My Father is greater than I*, and finding him saying: 'How, he says, are I and the Father one? Through the birth above, before the ages. How is the Father greater than I? Through the birth below, from the Virgin,' I follow the teaching of the holy man; yet in such a way that I also approve the expressions of the other holy men, as having been uttered from one and the same Spirit; understanding from them also according to the human in Christ—that is, the created nature of Christ, in which he also suffered for us—that the saying

^A “My Father is greater than I,” is to be revered. The Bishop of Dercos said that he concurred with the opinion of the Bishop of Crete in all things; likewise, the Bishop of Anchialos also said that he stood by the opinion of the Bishop of Crete in everything.

10. The most reverend and great oikonomos said: I would have much to say regarding why I believe the Lord spoke of the Father as greater even because of his humanity; however, for the sake of brevity I shall be content with the apostolic ^B utterance, which says thus: “For both he who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all from one,” and with the interpretation of “from one,” namely that God is the common Father of all, as creator and maker, and indeed even of Christ himself, because of his humanity. And it is in no way incongruous if, according to this reasoning, he said the Father is greater, even as a man. The great skevophylax said: Not yet was the faith of the apostles regarding the Savior full and firm; and on that account their infirmity required greater care than the demonstration of his divine glory and greatness. When, therefore, the Jews thought he was making himself equal to God, they took up stones against him. ^C Therefore, to withdraw from the equality with God, clearly asserting his own smallness, demotion, and humility, and not disdaining the measure of humanity, and not rejecting expressions appropriate to such an attenuation, he called the Father “greater” at an opportune time, inasmuch as he had received the form of a servant. The great sakellarios said: The only-begotten Word of God and the Father, having emptied himself for our salvation and having come under a composition, said in the Gospels, “My Father is greater than I,” also because of the composition—that is, because he wore human nature, which is passible and created, which also suffered. The chartophylax said: Since the only-begotten ^D Son of God, consubstantial and equal in honor to the Father, being perfect God, also became perfect man for our salvation—having in like manner partaken of blood and flesh with us—for that reason he called the Father greater than himself, also according to the created nature in him, in which he also suffered. The kanstrisius said: I also know that among the exegetical explanations of this utterance by the holy Fathers, some affirm that this was said also concerning his humanity—and by humanity I mean insofar as he was made man. Indeed, I also understand the saying according to the substantial and physical rationale of the humanity that is in him, whose created substance, hypostatically united to the uncreated and deified by reason of the supreme conjunction, we venerate and worship not only inconfusedly and inconvertibly, but also immutably, with a single adoration in the uncreated Word; and he is perfectly God in his own inconvertibility, and is wondrously so named.

11. The referendarius said: When for a long time there was a discussion concerning the evangelical saying, “My Father is greater than I,” as to whether that was understood by our holy priests and divine Fathers even according to the divinity of the Lord; and when I had considered the meaning of this utterance as it was pronounced concerning the same, and had not once discussed it—

^A I arrived at a cognition of the great holiness of this man, confirming that he interprets the saying in accordance with the holy Fathers, and I abide by the judgment of his great holiness. The commentator said: "Having listened to the judgments of the most holy patriarchs, I follow these." The hieromnemon said: "I also follow the judgments of the most holy patriarchs." The minister of the knees said that he also concurred in this. The preceptor said: "One is our preceptor and leader, Christ; since I know our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch to be his orthodox disciple, I follow his judgment." The monitor said: "Since by the grace of God I know our most holy lord to have right sentiments and to observe the traditions of the divine Fathers, I too follow his doctrine." The same was said by the first prepositus of the churches. The master of the rhetors said: "The saying pronounced by the holy and divinely inspired Fathers concerning the human nature, is perceived by me to be understood in this way: on the one hand, that the Father remained in that which He ever was, while the Son, undergoing a voluntary emptying, ^B descended into the form of a servant; on the other hand, according to the definition and reason of the human, created, and mortal nature assumed by Him." The second ostiary said he adhered to the judgments of the most holy patriarchs.

12. The most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch said that it seems to me that as many of the bishops and chief men as have affirmed that the words, *My Father is greater than I* [John XIV, 28], were spoken according to the humanity in Christ—that is, according to the created human nature in Him, in which He also suffered—have answered rightly and without offense and to the point; but those who have said otherwise, having made their answer obscure, and failing to agree among themselves, do not appear to me to have answered the question. The most holy patriarch of the city of God, great Antioch, said that the saying, *My Father is greater than I*, was spoken by Christ also according to the incarnation and His created and passible nature. The most holy patriarch of Jerusalem said: "The Holy Spirit has already ^C anticipated the explanation of the words, *My Father is greater than I*, through the holy and great illuminators of the Church and the holy and sacred synods; I therefore accept all the definitions according to which those words were interpreted. Since the Fathers have affirmed that this saying was spoken by Christ both inasmuch as He is true God and inasmuch as He is true man, who indeed has a created and passible nature, in which He also suffered, I also say the same, and I cannot deny it."

13. After these opinions were thus given by the most holy patriarchs, those who had expressed their views obscurely were asked whether they agreed with the judgments of the most holy ^D patriarchs or not. And immediately the [bishop] of Myra said that he agreed. The [bishop] of Corinth said that he also supported these, and neither had any contrary...

^A opinion, as he had said in it that he accepted the sinless passions of Christ by economy, that is to say, truly. The [bishop] of Athens said that he too followed the opinions of the most holy patriarchs. Similarly, the [bishop] of Larissa said that he followed them; likewise, the [bishop] of Rhodes said that he adhered to them. And the [bishop] of Philippi also said that he followed them. The [bishop] of Neopatras said to add at the last word of his opinion, "having taken on created and passible flesh, in which he also suffered." The [bishop] of Aenos said that he too, after the words of his opinion, in order to confirm the faith of the incarnation—and also before the words, "but I affirm this in such a way that I do not reject the other opinions of the saints"—would add to his opinion, "as having taken on mortal and passible flesh, in which he indeed also suffered." The [bishop] of Corfu said that he withdrew entirely from his previously stated opinions and adhered to the opinions of the patriarchs. The great ^B skeuophylax, being asked himself whether he followed the opinions of the most holy patriarchs, said that he would add to the final word of his opinion, "having taken on the form of a servant," the words, "and having taken on visible, tangible, created, circumscript, and passible flesh, in which he truly also suffered." He also said that he agreed with the opinions of the patriarchs. The great sacellarius also said that he followed the opinions of the most holy patriarchs. The [bishop] of Kaustrion also said that he adhered to the opinions of the patriarchs. And the master of the rhetoricians said that he too followed them. Since, therefore, all were in agreement and no one remained with a different opinion, a favorable acclamation was made by all, in the month and indiction written above, in the year 6674.

THIRD ACT

Month of March, the sixth day, indiction XIV, the first day.

1. Presiding was our God-crowned, most powerful, and holy king and emperor Lord Manuel Comnenus in the same vaulted chamber; sitting with his sublime majesty were the despotes, the beloved son-in-law of his holy majesty, Lord ^C Alexios; the most holy and ecumenical patriarch Lord Lucas; the most holy patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, Lord Athanasius; and the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem, Lord Nicephorus. Standing by our powerful and holy king were his beloved nephews, the sons of the renowned brother of his holy majesty, the Porphyrogennetos and sebastocrator Lord Andronicus, namely the protovestiarios Lord John and Lord Alexios, of the Comneni; the beloved paternal cousin of our powerful and holy king, Lord John Ducas, son of the renowned Porphyrogennetos and sebastocrator Lord Andronicus, the beloved uncle of his ^D holy majesty; the beloved maternal cousin of our powerful and holy king, Lord Andronicus, son of the Caesar; and the beloved maternal cousins of his holy

majesty, the sons of the beloved uncle of his ^A holy majesty, the pansebastos sebastokrator, Lord Theodore Vatatzes—namely, Lord Andronicus and Lord Alexius; the beloved cousin of our holy king, Lord John Ducas, the son of the illustrious Caesar Bryennius; the beloved cousin of our holy king, Lord Alexius Comnenus, the son of the panhypersebastos; the beloved cousins of our holy king, the sons of the beloved uncle of his holy majesty, the pansebastos sebastokrator, Lord Constantine Angelus—namely, Lord John, Lord Alexius, Lord Andronicus, and Lord Isaac; the pansebastos sebastos and son-in-law of our powerful and holy king, Lord John Cantacuzenus; the pansebastos sebastos and son-in-law of our holy king, Lord Constantine Ducas; the pansebastos sebastos and son-in-law of our powerful and holy king, Lord Joseph Bryennius; the pansebastos sebastos and son-in-law of our holy king, Lord John Arbantinus; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord Leo Camyteres; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord Alexius Branas; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord Gudelius Tzicandiles; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord Alexius Comnenus; the pansebastos sebastos and Great Hetaireiarch, Lord George Palaeologus; the pansebastos sebastos and his own brother, Lord Constantine; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord Alexius ^B Palaeologus; the pansebastos sebastos and Great Drungarios, Lord Andronicus Camaterus; the pansebastos sebastos, Lord John Contostephanus; the pansebastos sebastos and protonotary, Lord Basil Camaterus; the protonobelissimopypertatos, Lord Michael Angelus; the protonobelissimopypertatos logothete of the drome and orphanotrophos, Lord Michael Hagiotheodorita; the protonobelissimopypertatos for the Kanikleion, Lord John Camaterus; the most magnificent protoasecretis, Macrembolites; the protonobelissimos and eparch, Basil Camaterus; the protonobelissimos of the petitions and guard, Michael Camaterus; the protonobelissimos, Isaac Acoluthus; the nobelissimos and primikerios of the Bardariotai, Basil Trypsychas; the nobelissimos and quaestor, George Manganes; the most magnificent dicaeodotes of domestic affairs, Theodore Pantechnes; the protocuropalates, George Scylitzes; the protocuropalates and judge of the courts, John Carianites; of the curopalates and judges of the Velum and superintendents of the Hippodrome, George Spleniaris and Constantine Mesarites; of the judges of the Velum and superintendents of the Hippodrome, Thomas Hapluchires and Leo Monasteriotes.

^A 2. There being present also the most holy metropolitans: Michael of Heraclea, Basil of Cyzicus, Michael of Nicomedia, Nicetas of Amasea, Nicetas of Melitene, John of Gangra, Christopher of Myra, Theodore of Corinth, Nicholas of Athens, Luke of Mocesus, John of Crete, Michael of Trebizond, John of Larissa, Basil of Philippopolis, Leo of Rhodes, John of Philippi, George of Hadrianopolis, Pothus of Mitylene, Euthymius of Neopatras, Constantine of Euchaita, John of Amastris, Leo of Dristra, Constantine of Corcyra, Michael of Abydus, Nicholas of Methymna, Nicetas of Lacedaemonia, Nicetas of Miletus, Nicetas of Maronea, Constantine of Arcadiopolis, Nicholas of Parium, Isaac of Proconnesus, Theodulus of Selymbria, John of Dercus, and Stephen of Anchialus.

3. There being present also the God-beloved sovereign officials: the most honorable and great economus Alexius, the great scevophylax John, the great sacellarius Stephen, the chartophylax John, the canstrisius Samuel, the referendarius Michael, the commentaresius Constantine, the hieromnemon George, the official in charge of the kneeling (epi ton gonaton) Constantine, the master of the holy Gospels Nicholas, the admonisher (hypomimneskon) Constantine, the proto-prepositus of the churches Theodore, the magister Basil, and the second ostiarius Myron.

^C 4. My Majesty, being about to subscribe to the decree drafted and read on the second of the current month of March, regarding the interpretation of the evangelical saying, *My Father is greater than I*, desired to affix its own signature not without an addition, which was publicly read, and it stands to the letter as follows: "I follow the opinions of the most holy patriarchs and of the sacred and divine synod, and I say that this flesh of the Lord, having been exalted by that very union and placed above every honor (in such wise that by this outstanding bond it has been deified) immutably, invariably, inconfusedly, and inconvertibly, by the grace of the hypostatic union, remaining inseparable and indivisible, is with the Word of God who assumed it, worshipped and adored with equal honor in a unique adoration, and holds a royal and divine seat at the right hand of the Father, inasmuch as it has attained the glorious gifts of the divinity, while the properties of the natures are preserved."

^D 5. Since this addition seemed acceptable to the most holy patriarchs and to the sacred and divine synod, and they themselves concurred with it—as their own opinions written in the aforementioned note show (even if they were not written at greater length on this matter, because the subject was not discussed at length)—my Majesty subscribed with this addition. It was, moreover, written in red ink.

^A 6. Manuel in Christo Deo faithful emperor Porphyrogenitus and autocrat of the Romans, the Comnenus, follow the sentiments of the most holy patriarchs and of the divine and sacred synod, and I say that this flesh of the Lord, being exalted by the power of that very union and placed above all honor (so that by this noble bond it is deified), remains immutably, invariably, unconfusedly, and inconvertibly, by the grace of the hypostatic union, inseparable and indivisible, and is honored and worshipped together with the God-Word who assumed it with equal honor, in one adoration, and that it sits upon the royal and divine throne at the right hand of the Father, inasmuch as it has acquired the glorious gifts of the divinity, while the properties of the natures are preserved.

Subscriptions of the patriarchs.

^B 7. I, the humble monk Lucas, by the mercy of God archbishop of Constantinople of New Rome, having defined, have subscribed. I, Athanasius, by the mercy of God patriarch of the City of God, the great Antioch, having defined, have subscribed. I, Nicephorus, by the mercy of God patriarch of the mother of all churches, holy Sion, the city of Jerusalem, having defined, have subscribed.

Subscriptions of the metropolitans.

8. I, Stephanus, by the mercy of God archbishop of the metropolis of Caesarea in Cappadocia, having defined, have subscribed. I, Michael, metropolitan of Heraclea, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Cyzicus, Basilius, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Nicomedia, Michael, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Nicaea, Georgius, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Chalcedon, Constantinus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble, though unworthy, low-ranking metropolitan of Amasea, Nicetas, having ^C defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Melitene, Nicetas, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Gangra, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Myra, Christophorus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Caria, Leo, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Corinth, Theodorus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble bishop of Athens, Nicolaus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Mocesus, Lucas, having defined, have subscribed. I, the archbishop of the metropolis of Crete, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Trapezus, ^D Michael, having defined, have subscribed.

I, the humble metropolitan of Larissa, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. ^A I, the humble metropolitan of Philippopolis, Basilius the Great, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Rhodes, Leo, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Philippi, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the least bishop of Hadrianopolis, Leo, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Hierapolis, Georgius, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Dyrrachium, Michael, having defined, have subscribed. I, Constantinus, the humble metropolitan of Smyrna, having defined, have subscribed. ^B I, the humble metropolitan of Mitylene, Pothus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble bishop of the metropolis of Neopatras, Euthymius, having defined, have subscribed. I, Constantinus, the humble metropolitan of Euchaita, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Amastris, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Thebes, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble bishop of the metropolis of Serrae, Theodorus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the unworthy servant of Christ and my God, Leo, metropolitan of Dristra, having defined, have subscribed. ^C I, the humble metropolitan of Aenus, Joannes, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Corcyra, Constantinus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Abydos, Michael, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Methymna, Nicolaus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Lacedaemonia, Nicetas, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Paronaxia, Constantinus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble metropolitan of Miletus, Nicetas, having defined, have subscribed. ^D I, the humble archbishop of Bizye, Theodorus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Maronea, Nicetas, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Arcadiopolis, Constantinus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Parium, Nicolaus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Proconnesus, Isaacius, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Selybria, Theodulus, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Nice, Demetrius, having defined, have subscribed.

I, the humble archbishop of Derkos, John, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Gothia, John, having defined, have subscribed. I, the humble archbishop of Anchialos, Stephen, having defined, have subscribed. ^A I, the humble metropolitan of Neocaesarea, Basil, being required by the right pertaining to the most holy Church which I hold, formerly of Myra, to subscribe, because this venerable tome was completed and subscribed to before I was consecrated bishop, I therefore have defined and subscribed here. I, the humble metropolitan of Iconium, John, being required by the right pertaining to the most holy Church which I hold, formerly of Corinth, to subscribe, because this venerable tome was completed and subscribed to before I was consecrated bishop, I therefore have defined and subscribed here.

ACT FOURTH.

1. As the Lord’s Day approached, on which the synodal decrees are recited and the orthodox sentiment concerning the restored ^B veneration of the holy icons is proclaimed, four chapters were proposed and recorded in the synodal book. And when the emperor, having put on his imperial crown, and the most holy patriarchs and the most sacred assembly of all the bishops had taken their places within the holy chancels, the composed tome, as has been said, being carried in his invincible hand, was placed upon the mystical and heavenly table; and the chapters that had been composed were read aloud with the preceding writings and made known to those who had gathered; and they express these things word for word as follows:

I. - 2. To those who do not rightly receive the holy utterances of the doctors of the Church of God; and ^C who attempt to subvert by a perverse interpretation those things which were said openly and manifesty therein through the grace of the Holy Spirit, anathema be.

II. - 3. To those who understand the saying of the true God and our Savior Jesus Christ, "The Father is greater than I," along with the remaining interpretations of the holy Fathers, also concerning the humanity of Christ, in which he indeed suffered, just as the holy Fathers explicitly proclaim in many of their God-inspired sermons; furthermore, to those who affirm that the same Christ truly suffered in his own flesh, eternal memory be.

III. - 4. To those who imagine the deification of the incarnation and say that it is a conversion of human ^D nature into divinity; and who do not believe that, because of the very conjunction, the body of the Lord indeed enjoys divine dignity and honor and is adored with a single adoration in the Word of God who assumed it; and that it is thus equally honorable, glorious, life-giving, of equal honor with God the Father and the most holy Spirit, and sits on the same throne, yet without becoming consubstantial with God—

^A so as to depart from the physical properties of what is created, ^B of the circumscribed, and of the rest of those things contemplated in the human nature of Christ; but rather they think that it was transformed into the substance of the Divinity, so as to introduce from this that the incarnation of the Lord and the passion were phantom and not real, or that the Divinity of the Only-Begotten suffered; let him be anathema.

IV. 5. Of those who say that the flesh of the Lord, having been exalted by this very union and set above every honor (so that by this excellent bond it has been deified) immutably, invariably, inconfusedly, and inconvertibly, by the grace of the hypostatic union, remaining inseparable and indivisible together with the Word of God who assumed it, is honored and adored with equal honor to Him, with a single adoration, and sits on the royal and divine throne at the right hand of the Father, as having attained the glorious gifts of the Divinity, while the properties of the natures are preserved: let the memory of those who say thus, I say, be eternal.

6. It is decreed that this must be professed on the same Lord’s Day as the things mentioned before. Indeed, when at that time the bishop of Neocaesarea was to be ordained, besides the other things written for the examination of his orthodox mind, it was also ordered then that this be recited in these very words.

7. I also embrace and profess the things concerning the Dominical saying in the holy Gospels: *My Father is greater than I* (John 14, 28), as handed down by the holy Fathers, and declared in the religious tome which was composed by the will of our divinely inspired, powerful, and holy king Porphyrogenitus and emperor, lord Manuel Comnenus: namely, that the Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, pronounced this saying also according to His created and circumscribed nature, in which He also suffered. I also accept other interpretations of this saying by the holy Fathers. And it has been decreed that all who are to be ordained as bishops from now on are to secure these things as well.

8. These things have been done, and the Church of the one God was gathered and united, and according to the great Paul, *Christ is our peace, who has made both one* (Ephes. II, 14); and he who was endowed with infused wisdom just as Solomon was, ^D magnified in truth Him who is most peaceful and truly the anointed king of the Lord, Christ.

ACT FIFTH

1. But since the one who sows tares does not sleep, but plots against the wheat of true religion, he did not delay, nor did he put off his malice for long, but rumors once again began to sound, which attempted to fester the body of Christianity which had only recently been healed; and certain men began to murmur again, while the composed tome...

[...the] synod as being obscure, perverting the meaning of the written statements contained therein, and attempting to fashion a sect for themselves. When the synod had considered this matter, it judged it necessary to suppress rumors of this kind. Therefore, a formula was composed and read in the midst of the synod, the contents of which are as follows.

^B 2. I follow the opinion of our most powerful and God-crowned holy king and emperor, and of my most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, and of the other most holy patriarchs—namely, of the great God-city of Antioch and of Jerusalem—and of the sacred and divine synod. And whoever has not firmly and with a pure conscience adhered to these, or has thought the contrary after these doctrines were defined, or shall think so in the future, I subject him to anathema, and myself as well, if I should not believe accordingly. For since scandal has arisen, because some are ruining these opinions with a perverse interpretation—saying that the utterance of our true God and Savior Jesus Christ, "The Father is greater than I," is not to be understood as it was explained according to the diverse interpretations of the God-bearing holy Fathers—even according to the human, created, and circumscribed nature of Christ, in which He truly suffered at that time—but they adapt this utterance solely to the "emptying" (kenosis): others, moreover, understand these words according to a mere mental ^C distinction, saying that the utterance holds well if, by a precision of the mind, the Lord's flesh is considered by itself and apart from the divinity, as if it were not united at all; according to which logic it is called "servant" and "ignorant." And for this reason, they claim these words, which Christ our God Himself said according to his human, created, and circumscribed nature—in which He also suffered—were spoken according to this mere mental distinction. Or they say that He spoke it insofar as He represented the person of the common nature, according to which logic the "dereliction" on the cross is also spoken of, which the divinely inspired Fathers take to be regarding the person of the common nature of men. These, too, I say, who so opine, I subject to anathema.

^D 3. But the opinions—that is, the one of our most powerful, God-crowned holy emperor—are as follows: "I follow the opinions of the most holy patriarchs and of the divine and sacred synod, and I say that this flesh of the Lord, being exalted by that very union and placed above all honor—so that by this excellent bond it is deified—remaining immutably, invariably, inconfusably, and inconvertibly, by grace of the hypostatic union, inseparable and indivisible, with the God-Word who assumed it, is honored with equal honor and worshipped with a single act of worship, and sits upon the royal and divine throne at the right hand of the Father, as being the gifts of the Divinity

^A having been enriched, while the properties of the natures are preserved.

4. The opinion of our most holy lord the ecumenical patriarch was as follows: ^B "It seems to me that as many of the bishops and prelates as affirmed that the words spoken concerning Christ’s humanity—*My Father is greater than I*—were spoken according to the created human nature in Him, in which He also suffered, have answered rightly, blamelessly, and to the point; but those who have said otherwise have made the answer obscure, and do not even seem to me to have agreed among themselves or to have answered to the point." The position of the most holy patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, was as follows: The most holy patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, said that the statement *My Father is greater than I* was spoken by Christ also in accordance with the incarnation and the created and passible nature in that same Christ. The opinion of the most holy patriarch of Jerusalem was as follows: The most holy patriarch of Jerusalem said: "The Holy Spirit has already explained the words, *My Father is greater than I*, through the holy and great illuminators of the Church and the holy and sacrosanct synods; I receive, therefore, all the interpretations according to which they have explained it. Since, however, they have stated that the same Christ spoke such a statement both as perfect God and as perfect man—that is, as having within Himself the created and passible nature in which He also suffered—I myself say the same things and cannot deny them." ^C These opinions were subscribed to point by point; and they were read in the hearing of the most holy ecumenical Patriarch and the divine and sacred synod, by the God-beloved great skeuophylax, John Pantechnes. Finally, a synodal decree was added, the content of which we provide in what follows.

ACT SIXTH

On the twentieth day of the month of March, of the fourteenth indiction, on the first day.

1. While our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, lord Luke, presided in the western catechumenate; and while there were in session: [the bishops] of Caesarea, of Nicomedia, of Melitene, of Gangra, of Larissa, of Crete, of Philippopolis, of Euchaita, of Philippi, of Hierapolis, of Serres, of Abydos, of Paronaxia, of Miletus, of Arcadiopolis, of Parium, of Proconnesus, of Selymbria, and of Anchialus; and with the lord prelates standing by; the God-beloved great skeuophylax, John Pantechnes, in order to cleanse himself of all suspicion, as is made manifest by the preceding synodal decrees, ^D standing forth today, read from a scroll his prepared statement. Once these things had been read publicly before our mediocrity and the holy synod, he subscribed his name to such a document and cleared himself of all suspicion, so that the previous synodal decrees no longer concerned him in any way. Then, a writing of this kind was inscribed on the same document, and to it subscribed also many other bishops, because...

some of the bishops had been scandalized by them; and wishing that there should be no image of suspicion against them in the mind of anyone, they were saved, and these were: ^A Christopher of Myra, John of Larissa, Leo of Rhodes, Leo of Adrianopolis, Euthymius of Neopatras, John of Thebes, and Nicetas of Maronea: regarding each of whose subscriptions synodal decrees of the same tenor were set forth.

2. After these things, another synodal note proceeded, containing verbatim this: Month of April, the sixth day, the fourteenth indiction. President being the most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch, Luke, in the right alexian catechumenium; his great holiness sitting with the most sacred bishops of Caesarea, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Melitene, Gangra, Caria, Iconium, ^B Corinth, Mocessus, Crete, Trebizond, Philippi, Hierapolis, Mitylene, Thebes, Serres, Dristra, Corfu, Abydos, Miletus, Maronea, Parium, Selymbria, Nicaea [of Thrace], and Anchialus; with the most God-beloved lords presiding also standing by; the most God-beloved deacon and canstrisius of the most holy great church of God, Samuel, clearing himself of all suspicion, on the fourth day of the present month of April, standing in the midst, and holding in his hands the scroll already read and subscribed to by various most sacred bishops and most God-beloved presiding lords, in the hearing of the sacred synedrium read the things written in it, together with an addition ^C appended to it, because a paper had been discovered containing those things which were written in the addition, speaking in these words.

3. Since a document also appeared, the beginning of which is this: *There were they in great fear, where no fear was* (Ps. XIII, 5), the supreme Prophet and king, inspired in the Psalm, said, which has now been brought to fulfillment. For if the Scriptures exalt the Father above Christ, at the time when He had not yet come to the incarnation, it is truly nothing new that some now imagine and affirm the Father to be greater than the humanity of Christ. However, if they will certainly demonstrate to us that their sayings coincide also with the sentiments of the saints, then at last they will impose silence upon us. But in that same schedule, besides other things that are abhorrent and dissonant from the most upright dogmas of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, these things also were contained. ^D For I omit Amphilochius, Ambrose, and not a few others…

^A of those spiritual men; some of whom spoke boldly concerning such a dogma, as far as the literal sense of the words is concerned; while others even hinted at it. And further down: To imagine in one's mind Christ, insofar as he is man, as something separate, and thus to think of the Father as greater than him; and this document, insofar as it speaks against the orthodox piety, and these very words, injurious as they are to our holy Fathers, and to fashion for oneself a human nature of Christ that is, as it were, distinct; and thus to judge the Father greater than him—these things, I say, I manifestly subject to anathema; and likewise anyone who so believes or writes, or who is about to write or believe such things, whoever he may be, whether it be I or someone else.

4. ^B After, therefore, he had read these things, and had subscribed to this document in the presence of our mediocrity and the holy brotherhood sitting in council, it was decreed that on this day, these things having been completed, he should continue and proceed forward, just as the others who had subscribed to the other documents; and that he should associate and perform his office with our mediocrity and with the holy and divine synod. It was further deemed appropriate that, in addition to the chapters recently established in the synodical tome, which was to be read on the day of the feast of Orthodoxy, these things be added: To those who reject the expressions of the holy Fathers, which were uttered for the establishment of the upright dogmas of the Church of God, of Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Amphilochius, of the God-inspired Pope Linus of elder Rome, and the rest; ^C and also to those who do not embrace the acts of the ecumenical synods, I mean the fourth and the sixth, let there be anathema.

5. Of all these things, as the most beautiful roof of a house founded upon the rock—which rock the great Paul taught is Christ 87—as a seal, holy and unadulterated, of a fountain pouring forth the water of orthodoxy; as an unassailable gate to a garden having the tree of life, such has become the edict of our most powerful and holy emperor, and it is as follows.

6. Manuel in Christ God, the faithful king, Porphyrogenitus, etc. (We have already published the edict of Manuel in our volume CXXXIII, along with other ecclesiastical constitutions of the same emperor). ^D Now this most religious edict was signed in red ink by the own hand of our most powerful and holy emperor, in the month of April, in the fourteenth indiction; and it was secured by a golden seal.

ACTIO SEPTIMA. 1. After this venerable royal edict was read, a synodical decree went forth, setting forth the following word for word:

^A On the fourth day of the month of April, on the second day of the fourteenth indiction. ^B With our most holy master and ecumenical patriarch, Luke, presiding in the right-hand Alexian catechumenium; and there sitting with his great holiness the most sacred bishops: of Cyzicus, of Nicomedia, of Nicaea, of Melitene, of Gangra, of Neocaesarea, of Myra, of Caria, of Iconium, of Corinth, of Mocesum, of Athens, of Philippi, of Hadrianopolis, of Smyrna, of Euchaita, of Amastris, of Thebes, of Aenus, of Corcyra, of Abydos, of Paronaxia, of Miletus, of Maroneia, of Arcadiopolis, of Parium, of Proconnesus, of Selymbria, and of Nicaea; with the most God-beloved imperial officials also standing by.

2. "Paths of life are the thoughts of the prudent, and in the heart of a good man is the wisdom of God." So says Solomon, somewhere in the Proverbs. But our God-taught emperor has demonstrated this reality as fulfilled in his own person, having prepared [paths] leading to true and immortal life through his own divinely-guided thoughts and insights, and through the words of his God-moved tongue, for all men. For he not only removed the obstacles and stumbling blocks from their midst, but also cleared up what was arduous, harsh, and difficult to understand for many, and made them easy for those who find and grasp learning. Indeed, the matters transacted on the second day of the month of March just past—which then received confirmation through the votes of our mediocrity and of the other most holy patriarchs and the sacred synod, and on the sixth day of the same month were signed by the hand of the emperor with red ink—wishing to make them known to all in every city, region, island, and continent, so that all might hold to the true faith according to this dogmatic definition and not be carried away into the trackless paths of error, he issued a divine and venerable edict and sent it to our mediocrity and the sacred and divine synod; which was read publicly, and runs as follows:

3. Manuel, in Christ the God faithful Emperor, Porphyrogenitus, Emperor of the Romans, most pious, ever-august, Augustus, Isaurian, Cilician, Armenian, Dalmatian, Hungarian, Bosnian, Croatian, Lazic, Iberian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Zechian, Khazar, Gothic, God-directed, heir of the crown of the great Constantine, and in soul holding all his rights; as some have revolted from our empire, to our Christ-loving people of our royal and God-guarded city, and further to all the inhabitants of the continental and maritime regions subject to our empire.

4. If Christ blesses Peter, the one among the apos-

-^Atles supreme, because he surpassed all in the fervor of his love, and declared him to be Christ, the Son of the living God, as one who was taught this mystery by God the Father—what could be more blessed than this? And next, [the edict] contained, word for word, the entire previously written decree. And after this, these words were added: "When therefore such a venerable edict was publicly read aloud, the customary acclamation was made by all, who with one accord besought stability, life, and long-lasting health for his invincible majesty."

5. These things, then, were thus accomplished and completed. Nevertheless, the tempter did not cease to plot the disturbance of the Church; nor, though put to flight by the aforementioned actions, did he admit defeat. But by the same actions through which he himself lost his original glory, he is accustomed to plot his greatest deceits against men, attacking in a hostile manner from the left, while cloaking his fraud with the simulation of the right—as if masking the hook with bait, or poisonous herbs under a smear of honey. Thus, then, he nearly cast the most holy metropolitan of Nicaea into a fatal danger, so as to leave neither sacred person nor station remaining to him, submerged in deep waters from which he could not at all emerge. For he considered it glorious for himself to resist stubbornly in divine matters, ignoring, as the divine Scripture testifies, that zeal which is not according to knowledge is to be rejected by the Church. That these things are so, the decree issued by the order of the synod will make clear, and it is as follows. ^{B C}

EIGHTH SESSION. Mensis Maii die sexta, indictionis decimæ quartæ die sexta.

ΠΡΑΞΙΣ Η'. Μηνὶ Μαίῳ ς', ἡμέρᾳ ζ' ινδικτιώνος ιδ'.

1. With our most holy lord and ecumenical patriarch Luke presiding in the right-hand Alexian catechumenium; and there sitting with his great holiness the most holy archbishops of Caesarea, Heraclea, Caria, Mocesum, Crete, Trebizond, Philippi, Mitylene, Neopatras, Euchaita, Amastris, Serres, Thebes, Aenus, Apamea, Abydos, Lacedaemonia, Paronaxia, Arcadiopolis, Parium, Selymbria, Nicaea, Brysis, and Dercus; with the God-beloved imperial lords also in attendance. ^D

2. "A time to be silent and a time to speak," the wise Ecclesiastes says; by these words admonishing the sober and sensible hearer not to speak anything thoughtlessly, nor to blurt anything out intemperately with the lips, but first to examine and discern what he revolves in his mind, and to consider diligently, that a corrupt word may not proceed from our mouth, but rather, if there is one that is good and salutary, and suitable for the edification of others.

^A The most holy metropolitan of Nicaea, George, not taking these words of the Ecclesiastes to heart, nor having listened to the counsel of Sirach, which suggests that the wise man should dare to speak, while the fool should place his hand upon his mouth [Eccli. V, 14], opened his mouth without first gathering his breath; and thus, with his breath, he poured forth what was on his mind, but he poured it out inconsiderately, as is made manifest in the synodal decree issued on the sixth day of last April of the present fourteenth indiction, in which synodal decree he was judged guilty and liable to punishment.

^B 3. Therefore, he fled for refuge to the inexhaustible fountain of mercy—or rather, to speak more confidently, to the abyss of clemency—that is, to our crowned, most mighty, and holy emperor; and with fervent tears he moved his gentle and divine spirit to compassion. In such wise that a divine and venerable rescript was sent from there to our mediocrity and the holy synod, through the great and most illustrious protocuropalates and royal scribe, the lord George Scylitzes, just as is set forth in the synodal decree which was composed on the day of the past month of April, of the present fourteenth indiction, on account of the dispatch of this royal and divine rescript to us. ^C Since, however, today again through the same royal scribe, our most excellent and holy king has signified to our mediocrity and to the holy and divine synod—not indeed imperatively, but as if by way of counsel—that we should conduct ourselves more mercifully toward the Nicene, while yet safeguarding the canons, our mediocrity, together with the holy brotherhood, after reading the synodal decree of the sixth day of the past month of April of the present fourteenth indiction, by which the Nicene was judged liable to punishment, deemed it necessary to examine what canonical punishment the Nicene deserved; for this remained to be decided, namely, that a judgment should be passed on the quality of the punishment to be inflicted. And since the canonical punishment was not found to be deposition, it interdicted the Nicene from ministry for two years, having regard for clemency. ^D But when, for several hours, the Nicene lay prostrate on the ground, watering the sacred pavement with many tears and sending forth sighs from the depths of his breast, such that he moved the entire synod to mercy and drew tears from all, and likewise stirred even our mediocrity to mercy—our mediocrity, I say, together with the holy brotherhood, restricted the Nicene from ministry for only one year, and likewise from synodal votes. Since such a punishment seemed to all to be not only canonical but also mild, the document was delivered to him at his own request, having already been signed by many, and he himself also signed it.

^A God brought such an end to the proposals; thus the great storm of the Church has been calmed; thus the worthy steersman of the royal scepters, moved and governed by God, the pilot of all, guarded those given to him and those under his rule, and none of them all perished, nor has any been cast into the depths of the sea of a heretical heart; but like those guided by a beacon light, all have anchored in the harbors of orthodoxy. So too now, the wisdom of God has built for itself this king as another new dwelling, adorned with the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit; and coming with the Father, it makes its abode in him, according to the promise in the Gospels; and having placed the cup of knowledge in his hand, it grants all a chance to drink from it insatiably. Filled with this grace in reality, they all proved to be branches of the true vine, remaining in it and bearing fruit, and pouring out the wine of piety that gladdens orthodox hearts. This is truly the crown of the emperor’s past achievements; this is the summit of his incomparable trophies; this is a pledge of greater deeds to come. Thus has God set his imitator, the king, to speak with the great Jeremiah, as a fortified city for all time, and as a pillar to all who rule the earth, to the potentates, to the priests, and to the people of the earth; so that from this one may confidently declare what follows: that no enemy whatever shall be able to prevail against him, because the Lord is with him. But to this greatest emperor of ours (who preserves in this, too, his likeness to God, for there is no other customary name ^B more fitting to the preeminence of his mind, soul, hand, and prudence), no one at all will be able to render the thanks that are his due. Nevertheless, we all favor and applaud him with prayers poured out from the bottom of our hearts, and we sing with King David, “May God place his throne as the days of heaven, and prepare his seed forever, and fulfill all the petitions of his heart; and may all nations serve him, and may his fruit be lifted high above Lebanon,” and may he never cease to be called king, until, after long circuits of the sun, he migrates from this earthly realm to the immortal kingdom in heaven.

^C *The autograph subscriptions follow.*

The humble monk Lucas, by the mercy of God, archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome. The humble archbishop of the metropolis of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Stephen. ^D The humble archbishop of the most holy metropolis of Ephesus, Nilus. The humble metropolitan of Heraclea, Michael. The humble metropolitan of Cyzicus, Basil. The humble metropolitan of Nicomedia, Michael. The humble metropolitan of Nicaea, George.

(46) Emmanuel means "God with us," as no one is unaware.

Leo, humble metropolitan of Amasea. John, humble metropolitan of Gangra. John, humble metropolitan of Claudiopolis. Luke, humble metropolitan of Mocesus. John, archbishop of the metropolis of Crete. Theon, humble metropolitan of Patrae. Epiphanius, humble metropolitan of Philippi. George, humble metropolitan of Hierapolis. Michael, humble metropolitan of Dyrrachium. John, humble metropolitan of Aenus. Isaac, humble metropolitan of Apamea. Nicephorus, humble metropolitan of Nazianzus, although unworthy. Michael, humble metropolitan of Abydus. Nicolaus, humble metropolitan of Methymna. Nicetas, humble metropolitan of Lacedaemonia. Nicetas, humble metropolitan of Miletus. Nicolaus, humble archbishop of Parium. Isaac, humble archbishop of Proconnesus. Theodulus, humble archbishop of Selymbria. Michael, humble archbishop of Cius. Humblе archbishop of... John, humble archbishop of Cypsella. Constantinus, humble archbishop of Bryseos. Constantinus, humble archbishop of Gothia. — (The remaining subscriptions are missing because the last folios have been cut from the codex).

(47) Yet in the preceding [list], the metropolitan of Amasea is called Nicetas; and thus other names in these autograph subscriptions also differ somewhat from those written above. It seems, therefore, that the conciliar scribe sometimes wrote erroneously; for the bishops themselves would not have been ignorant of their own names, nor do I think that bishops were changed within such a brief interval of the synod. (48) Previously John. (49) I am unable to decipher the names of this episcopal city due to the unformed and extremely difficult stenographic mark. I read, however, with a smooth breathing and an acute accent on the first syllable. (50) Constantine, bishop of Gothia, occurs under Manuel Comnenus also in Allatius, *De Consensu*, p. 685.

NICETAS CHONIATA FROM AN UNCERTAIN BOOK OF THE TREASURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

On the recent heresy of the Liziciniani.

man, having embraced the heresy of the Manichaeans, considered the adorable Cross to be foolishness, and by calling our Lord and God Jesus Christ a creature, denied that his most holy mother was the Theotokos. He also ridiculed the partaking of the fearful and divine mysteries. Since many others had followed him, the heresy of the so-called Liziciani arose from this. Saint Methodius, having persuaded this man to return to the orthodox faith, convinced him to bring the others back as well; and having prepared them on a feast day to triumph solemnly over their own heresy, and having anointed them with holy chrism and arrayed them in white garments, he placed torches in their hands and joined them to the choir of the orthodox. ^A

REVIEW OF MEDICEAN CODEX XXIV, PLUT. IX.

This codex contains the *Treasury of the Orthodox Faith* by Nicetas Choniata, arranged into XXVII books, which he himself composed in exile for the sake of a friend who, upon the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins, had been forced to flee with nothing but himself. In this work, after setting forth the saving doctrine, he pursues every kind of heresy and sect down to his own age, and refutes them with the testimonies of the ancient doctors of the Church or with his own arguments. But since the whole of this work, on account of its bulk, has not yet seen the light it deserves, because it would easily fill two volumes in folio, it was my intention to subjoin the arguments of the books, of which an index precedes and occupies the first two pages of the codex; but since these have already been brought forth and published by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. Vol. VI, p. 420 sqq.) and by Montfaucon (Palaeogr. Graec. p. 327 sqq.), ^B we have omitted those things which we found to coincide with the aforementioned editions, and set forth only the argument of Book IV, which differs somewhat from them, which is as follows:

The fourth volume. In this are contained all the ancient heresies that appeared up to the heresy of Arius. First written is that of Simon, and the refutation against him, in which is shown also how Simon horribly corrupted the soul; second, that of the Nicolaitans; third, that of the Carpocratians; fourth, that of Valentinus, in which we have also spoken concerning the divine incarnation; fifth, that of Ptolemy; sixth, that of Mark; seventh, that of the Ascodruti, where also regarding the tabernacle of testimony and certain other things of the old law were spoken of; eighth, that of Colorbasus; ^C ninth, that of the Ophites, in which also concerning how the serpent was called prudent, and concerning the aeons, and concerning the tree of knowledge, and the expulsion of Adam from paradise; tenth, that of Prodicus, who taught that women should be held in common, in accordance with Plato. Eleventh, that of the Cainites; twelfth, that of the Sethians; thirteenth, that of the Archontici; fourteenth, that of Cerdon and Marcion, in which also [are things] concerning matter. Fifteenth, that of Lucian; sixteenth, that of Apelles; seventeenth, that of Severianus; eighteenth, that of Tatian; nineteenth, that of the Encratites; twentieth, that of the Ascodrogitæ; twenty-first, that of the Quintillians and Priscillianists and Pepuzians and Artotyrites; ^D twenty-second, that of the Tetraditæ, in which also [are things] concerning the divine mysteries; twenty-third, that of the Alogi; twenty-fourth, that of the Adamiani; twenty-fifth, that of the Sampsæans and Elkesaites, in which also [are things] concerning the incarnation of the Word; twenty-sixth, that of the Theodosians, in which also [is explained] how that is to be understood: "but to him who blasphemes against the Spirit it shall not be forgiven"; twenty-seventh, that of Noetus and Nabatus; twenty-eighth, that of Sabellius; twenty-ninth, that of Marcellus; thirtieth, that of the Euchites; thirty-first, that of Origen, in which also are various Hellenic opinions concerning the soul, and an interpretation of the apostolic saying, which says, "The fire shall test the work of each one, whatever it is"; thirty-second, that of Paul of Samosata; thirty-third, that of the Manichaeans and Cubricus, in which also is an explanation of the apostolic saying stating, "To appear the Lord in the likeness of man, and to be found in fashion as a man"; thirty-fourth, that of the Hieracites; thirty-fifth, that of the Collyridians; thirty-sixth, that of the Messalians, in which also the chapters of their heresy are set out, and various refutations against them; thirty-seventh, that of the Cerinthians; thirty-

octava, that of the Suppliants; the thirty-ninth, that of the Gnosimachi; the fortieth, that of the Thnetopsychitae; the forty-first, that of the Christolytae; the forty-second, that of the Ethnophrones, in which there are also various things about astronomy; the forty-third, that of the Parermeneutae; the forty-fourth, that of the Melitianae. Regarding the argument of the twenty-fifth book, the final words are missing from our manuscript: "For we, these things, etc."

Following the index of arguments is the inscription of the entire work, in this manner: "Collection of almost all opinions and heresies, and a history of the men who produced them; and furthermore, refutations of some of these, and especially the more ancient ones; as well as other things useful for the pious, composed by the honored Nicetas Choniates, who was judge of the Bel, overseer of judgments, [general official] of the imperial bedchamber, and subsequently great logothete of the secretariats." Then follows the Proemium, whose beginning on p. 3 is: "To God and to God-beloved men what worthy offering could be made? For the one who looks toward the most supreme among all things longed for desires none of the things that exist." The end is: "So that, unfolding one book, you may rejoice in the manifold nature of the writing, and from this you may gather a panacea against the deadly contrary dogmas; hence, therefore, of speaking, from this point I shall begin." Then the first book on p. 3b begins: "Adam, being first formed from that which was God's, and having received the life-giving breath, had from one of his own ribs Eve, similar to himself; and having lived nine hundred and thirty years, Adam begat Cain after the transgression of the commandment and the expulsion from paradise." The last book ends: "Which things all the power of the one Godhead in three persons, by the grace and simplicity of the evangelical preaching, made foolish."

II, p. 362b, the Treasury of Nicetas is followed by the later part of his Histories, divided into two books, which, since it differs from the editions not only in the distinction of the books but also in phrasing and in the very facts themselves—especially in the later book—would be truly worthy, if a new edition of this writer were to be prepared, of being collated with the published ones. The title precedes: "Herein the capture of the city, and some of the things that happened after this." This comprises the city's captivity and some of the things that occurred afterwards. The first book begins from chapter 8 of book 11 of Alexius Comnenus, Paris edition p. 345, Geneva p. 582, with the words: "But up to this point our account is level, and moving along a smooth path." It ends: "and for those who have hoped in the Lord, companionship is the consolation and the recalling." The second book, p. 372, begins with the words of the first chapter of the book on the state of Constantinople, Paris edition, p. 377, Geneva p. 634, namely: "Thus these things were, and Constantinople was the delight and talk of all nations, etc." It ends: "who also shows the asp and the basilisk being trodden upon, and the lion and the dragon being trampled." Where it is to be noted that a sufficiently long fragment from this later book, in which the destruction of the city and the state of the monuments demolished and melted down after the Latins captured Constantinople are discussed—since it is lacking in the printed editions—is referred to by Fabricius at the cited location, from p. 403 to p. 418.

Finally, for the conclusion of this review, since Fabricius, l. c., p. 435, exhibits an index of the writers praised by Nicetas Choniata in his Byzantine History, we also, following his example, have wished to bring forward to the public another catalog of the Holy Fathers and other authors whose passages and sentiments are cited in the same Treasury of Nicetas, which is as follows:

Agatho, p. 343. Ambrosius Mediol. pag. 233b, 343. From the discourse against Apollinarius, p. 178b. From that to Gratian the King. Ibid. Amphilochius Iconiensis, From the epistle to Seleucus, p. 178b. From the discourse against the Arians, pag. Anastasius Sinaita, in the book called Hodegos, p. 177b, 178, 188b, 233b. From the 16 chapters against the Monophysites, the 7th, p. 341b. Andreas Cretensis, from the discourse for Palm Sunday, p. 330. Athanasius, p. 342b, 34b. On the saying, "The Son was not always," p. 105b. Against those introducing the *homoiousion*, p. 107b. From the discourse on faith, p. 178b. Extracts against the Theopaschites, p. 187b. To those saying, "God suffered as He willed," p. 188. From the discourse on the incarnation, p. 332. From the interpretation of the royal priesthood, p. 333. From the dialectical discourse which he held against Arius, p. 340. Augustinus, p. 341b. Basilius Magnus, p. 104b, 107b, 108, 122, 190. From the epistle to Gregory his brother, p. 11b, 240. On the saying, "God is always Father," p. 104b. From the epistle to the Sozopolitans, p. 178b.

From the first discourse against Eunomius, p. 234. From the discourse against Arius, ibid. From the thirty chapters to Amphilochius of Iconium, p. 245b. From the exegesis on the prophet Isaiah, p. 330b. From the prayer beginning, "No one is worthy," etc., p. 332. On "I am the vine," p. 344.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, from the introduction to the Psalter, explaining in passing the verse, "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity," and the rest, p. 333.

Cyril of Alexandria, p. 105, 106a, 106b, 107a, 107b, 109b, 147b, 190b. From the discourse entitled, Proof through the ancient divine oracles given to the inspired patriarchs concerning the change and transfer of the Jews and the Gentiles, p. 18. To those who say that we believe in three gods, p. ead. b. Against those who introduce the lesser into the Son by [mis]quoting Christ in the Gospels, "My Father is greater than I," p. 108. On the progress of Christ, p. 111b. From the refutatory discourses against the opponents of the Spirit, p. 123b, 124, 125, 126. That the only-begotten Son of God, having become man, took a soul together with a body, p. 131b. Against the Nestorians, from the scholia on the union of the two natures of Christ, p. 133b. From the epistle to Acacius, p. 134, 135b. From the homily on the one Son, p. 134b, 135. From the discourse on the incarnation, p. 135b. From the discourse in question-and-answer format, p. 136, 137b, 138b. From the first homily, "That one should not call a man God-bearing, but God incarnate," p. 140b. From the epistle to Nestorius, p. 141. From the homily, "That Christ Jesus is one Lord," p. 141b. From the address to the most pious empress, p. 141b. From the discourse to the presbyters, deacons, and monks, p. 142, 143, 146b. From the address to the ladies, p. 143. From the sixth anathema, ibid. From the seventh anathema, ibid. From the epistle to Succensus, p. 179. From the address to the Alexandrians, ibid. From the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ibid. From the works against Nestorius, p. 188b. From the fourth discourse against the Arians, p. 204. From the third book of the dogmas against Julian, ibid. From the interpretation of the eighth book, p. ead. b. To Hermeias on the Holy Trinity, in question-and-answer format, p. 233. From the epistle to Epictetus, p. 234. From the address to Theodosius, ibid. On the mystical supper, p. 332b. From the twelve chapters against Theodoret, ibid. From the discourse to the princesses, ibid. and p. 349b. From the items on the obedience of Christ, p. 332b. From the discourse for the Feast of Palms, p. 340b. From the first book of the Thesaurus, in the eleventh chapter, p. 342. From the ninth discourse on worship in spirit, p. ead. b.

Cyril of Jerusalem, from the discourse on the Meeting of the Lord, beginning "Rejoice greatly," etc., p. 322b.

Dionysius the Areopagite, from the second chapter on the united and the distinguished, p. 11. From the ninth chapter on the complete and the one, p. ead. b. On God, p. 15. From the first chapter of the work on divine names, p. 59b. From the epistle to Gaius the Therapeut, ibid. From the Theological Elements of St. Hierotheus, p. 40.

St. Ephrem, Archbishop of Antioch, from the apologies he made on behalf of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of St. Leo, p. 207b.

Eustratius, Metropolitan of Nicaea, from the discourse to Grotolanus, Bishop of Milan, on the procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 266. From the second discourse of the same to the same Bishop of Milan, p. 268b. From another discourse of the same, p. 273b. Scientific chapters by the same, in which it is shown impossible for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, p. 275. From the second discourse on the unleavened bread, p. 333b.

Euthymius, monk of Zigabenos, twelve chapters against those of Old Rome, namely the Italians, showing that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, p. 296.

Gregory Nazianzen, from the first discourse on the Son, p. 12, 105, 108b, 109, 342. From the second discourse on the Son, p. 40b, 106b, 109b, 110, 178b, 190, 340. From the discourse on the dogma and ordering of bishops, p. 12. From the discourse to the Arians and on himself, p. 12b. From the great apologetic discourse, p. 16. From the discourse on the Nativity, p. 40. From the discourse on the Lights, p. ead. b. From the second discourse to Cledonius, ibid. From the second discourse on Easter, ibid. From the exhortatory discourse to baptism, ibid. From the discourse on the arrival of the 150 bishops, p. 107. From the discourse on the incomprehensible generation of the Son and God, p. 108. On the Holy Spirit, p. 121, 122.

Gregory of Nyssa, p. 105b. On the divine incarnation, from the catechetical discourse, p. 40b. 123. From the discourse on the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and on Abraham, p. 341b.

Faith revealed to St. Gregory the Wonderworker, as in the teaching of the most holy Theotokos.

^A And of the holy apostle John the Evangelist, p. 28. By the same, from the discourse on faith in part, regarding the two natures of Christ, p. 178 b. Ignatius S. apostle, bishop of Antioch, p. 188 b.

Joannes Chrysostomus, p. 343. From the book on the Incomprehensible, p. 16 b. From the epistle to Acacius, p. 179. From the 65th homily of the interpretations of the Gospel according to John, p. 204. From the 7th homily of the epistle to the Ephesians, p. 233 b. From the discourse against Arius and on the Annunciation, ibid. and p. 340 b. From the third discourse on the Priesthood, p. 330 b. From the book against the Jews, p. 331. From the interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew, ibid. From the interpretation of the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 331, 340 b. On the apostle Thomas, p. 331 b. From the discourse on the Lights, ibid. From the 27th homily on the holy Gospel according to John, p. 341.

Joannes Damascenus, p. 106, 107 b, 109 b, 112, 146 b, 147 b, 173 b, 174 b, 175, 186 b, 201 b, 202, 334, 339 b. From his theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, at once distinguished and united, p. 13. By the same, from various Fathers, p. ead. b. On the holy Trinity, p. 19 b. On the conception of Christ, p. 34 b. On the mode of the exchange, p. 42. That the whole divine nature was united to the human nature in one of its hypostases, and not part to part, p. ead. b. On the hypostasis viewed in species and in individual, and on the difference of union and incarnation, p. 43. On natural and blameless passions, p. ead. b. On the Trisagion, p. 189. On the theandric energy, p. 202 b. Against those who say that if man consists of two natures and energies, it is necessary to say the same regarding Christ, namely three natures and so many energies, p. 235. From his chapter 86 on the holy and immaculate mysteries of the Lord, p. 330 b. Against those who say the hypostasis of Christ is created or uncreated, ^C chap. 127, p. 342. On the properties of the natures, chap. 106. Idem.

The epistle of John of Jerusalem and the bishops under him to John of Constantinople, confirming the proceedings against Severus, p. 167 b. Isidorus Pelusiota, from the epistle to Theonas, p. 236. Julius of Rome, p. 188 b. Justinianus imperator, from his dogmatic epistle to Zoïlus, most holy patriarch of Alexandria, p. 208. Edict against Anthimus, Severus, Peter, and Zoaras, p. 166. From the edict, which Agatho, the most holy Pope of Rome, also mentions in the letter sent by him to the illustrious emperors Heraclius and Tiberius, which is also laid down in the acts of the Sixth Council, p. 236. Justinus philosophus et martyr, from his discourse on faith, p. 178 b. Leo papa, from the epistle called the Pillar of Orthodoxy, p. 341 b. From the second epistle to emperor Leo, whose inscription is: "To his most glorious and serene son, Leo the bishop," p. 342. Of the lord Leo of Bulgaria, the first to be put forth... by the blessed emperor lord Basil, from his epistle on the Unleavened Bread, p. 330 b. From the chapters of Leontius against Severus, p. 180, 181. Letter of the emperor lord Manuel to the Catholicos of Armenia, p. 216 b.

Maximus, p. 168, 169, 170, 194, 196 b, 197, 199, 331 b. Theology of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, at once distinguished and united, p. 13. On God in general, p. 16. On the divine incarnation from the exposition of his discourse on the creed, p. 41 b. From the discourse ^D that number neither divides nor is divided, p. 168 b. That, as Pyrrhus said, the flesh was not moved by the will of the united Word, p. 199 b. From the disputation with Pyrrhus, p. ead. et 200 et 203 b. From the epistle to Nicander, p. 201. Against those who say that one must speak of Christ’s energy as one by prevalence, ibid. Against those who say that just as there is one energy of the instrument and the mover, so too there is one energy of deity and humanity, ibid. Against those who speak of one composite energy in Christ, p. ead. b. From his refutatory discourse against the heretic Apollinarius, p. 188 b. Melito Sardensis, p. 188 b. Nicephorus patriarcha CPolitanus. Vide infra in voce Photius.

Nicolaus Methonensis episcopus, p. 307. From his discourse against the Latins on behalf of the Spirit, p. 262. Capital refutations of the doctrine newly surfaced among the Latins, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, summarized by him from what he wrote at length in various discourses, p. 296 b. Photius patriarcha CPolitanus, from his encyclical epistle regarding the Spirit, in which he blames the Latins for saying that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, p. 288. From the discourse on the mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, p. 332. From the discourse whose beginning is, "How could the death of Christ be called ‘willed’ by the Father," etc., p. 334. Citations against the Iconoclasts from the writings of Nicephorus and Photius, patriarchs of Constantinople, and Theodore the Studite, p. 210.

^A Proclus, usages, p. 235 b. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, from the synodal letter, p. 206 b, 343 b. A syllogism of the great drungary, the lord Stephen, p. 333 b. From the synodal letter read in the Great Church, p. 334. An exposition of Soterichus, the most noble, showing how he held opinions concerning the dogma which says, "You are the one who offers and is offered," p. 327 b. The note made concerning the dogma that arose against the most noble Soterichus, p. 334 b. Theodoret, from the 24th chapter of the interpretation of the secrets of Exodus, which begins, "Why did he command the feast of the Passover to be celebrated?" p. 330 b. From the discourse of Theodore of Smyrna on the Unleavened Bread and the Spirit, […], p. 293 b. Theodore the Studite. See above under the entry Photius. Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria: from the writings on the Spirit, p. 275. From the interpretation of the Four Gospels, p. 332 b. On the passage of the Epistle of the great Paul to the Colossians which says, "And through him to reconcile all things to himself," p. 333. From the synods there are brought forward: the first general [synod], p. 178 b; the fourth, of Chalcedon, p. 152 b; and the sixth, p. 193. ^B

III. Finally, on the last page, certain iambic verses are read, to which the following precedes by way of a title: Extemporaneous acclamation in iambics, in the manner of an epigram, by a certain Thessalonian Mesopotamites on the book he had read, in which he endeavored to express the composition of this book and the twofold scope of the treatment, namely, the ecclesiastical history set forth and the matters at the end. The iambic verses are as follows:

1. Another evangelical householder Has opened his mouth, containing a treasury; Both old and new are brought forth from it, Ancient dogmas and new oracles. 5. This well-ordered composition of the book Shows a human mixture, a composite fabric; It seems both soul and body, knowledge and corruption, And if there is heaven above, there is earth below; The present volume is a true image of the world, 10. In which first are the divine, and then the human things. And that metrical work of the Iliad Lay hidden in an emerald-encrusted box: Which shows the excellence of Alexander’s spirit, And was a token of royal munificence, 15. A testimony of a royal and truly splendid heart, A green stone, a burgeoning of the meadow of speech, A clear dioptra of the craving for Homer. But the matter of this book is somewhat hidden; The pages of the heart must be unfolded, 20. And the entire middle section must be explained. Let Solomon’s couch be fortunate for it; Such a house is a place worthy of this, I have perused the book of life, but behold I see, It carries words of life in its letters, 25. Although mortal, mixed with immortal sayings, The fulfillment of prophetic foretelling, The division of the seven and the eight, Unless someone might prefer to call some other Seven—that seven-flamed synodal lamp, 30. Which has here ignited a saving light for us.

The Greek codex is on paper, manuscript, in folio, of the XIII century, on whose last page, attached to the cover of the codex, it is noted by the same hand, as it seems: Book of the priest Lord Mark the spiritual. It consists of 385 written leaves.