BY THE SAME AUTHOR: PROFESSION OF FAITH CONCERNING CHRIST
Maxentius is entirely given over in this Profession of his faith, and in other works of his which are inserted into this volume, to the establishing of this proposition for the sake of the profession and approval of the faith of the Council of Chalcedon against the Nestorians and Eutychians: *Christ, one of the Trinity, suffered or was crucified.* Although this proposition can in itself, otherwise, bear a sound and Catholic meaning, nevertheless the legates of Pope St. Hormisdas at Constantinople, St. Hormisdas himself, and many other holy and orthodox men vehemently disapproved of it and denounced it as new and heretical, because underneath it an Eutychian poison was concealed. Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, a famous writer of that time, in his Epistle to Anatolius, deacon of the Roman Church, sets forth three reasons, among others, why they rightfully repudiated it. The first was, lest by saying "one of the Trinity," it might be thought that the "One" is one thing, and the "Trinity" another. The second, lest he might appear to be a son of the Trinity, or a God of the Trinity. Consult him personally where he explains these things more fully, as well as the Epistles of Hormisdas and his legates in Volume I of the Epistolæ Romanorum Pontificum. Furthermore, consult what Baronius accurately notes in Vol. VII of his Annals, year 519, chaps. 85, 106, and 112. Wherefore, approach these works of John Maxentius with a slow step and critical judgment as one would those of an Eutychian heretic—dangerous all the more for being so sophisticated—lest you stumble.
Therefore, following in all things the faith of the holy Fathers, we confess one and the same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in divinity, and the same perfect in humanity, true God and true man, the same from a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us according to his humanity, in all things like us, sin apart. Born of the Father before the ages according to his divinity, but in these last days, the same, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin, Mother of God, according to his humanity. We acknowledge A one and the same Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. In no way is the diversity of the natures to be destroyed on account of the unity, but rather the property of each nature is preserved, concurring in one person and one subsistence. It is not to be suffered or divided into two persons, but [we confess] one and the same only-begotten Son, God the Word, our Lord Jesus, just as the prophets told us from the beginning concerning God, and as Christ himself has instructed us. These two natures, therefore, of the Word of God our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, of his divinity and humanity, we naturally believe and confess according to the tradition of the holy Fathers to be united, and thus the inviolable nature of God the Word is united to the passible nature, as the most blessed and learned Athanasius says: "The Word is flesh, but the Word did not become flesh. But the Word is said to have become flesh, because the Word obtained flesh, and not that of some man; that is, God became man, and is called flesh, lest you pass over the name of flesh." Why, therefore, is the natural union of the Word not sufficient for us to his proper B flesh, and [sufficient to explain] why God became man? The most holy theologian Cyril fittingly addresses this to Nestorius: "For we do not say," he says, "that the nature of God, having been changed or altered, became flesh, or that it was transformed into the whole man, who is composed of soul and body, but rather that the Word united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, and that the Son of God was made man subsistentially, ineffably, and incomprehensibly, and was called the Son of Man. And not by bare will alone, nor by the assumption of a person, but because, although diverse natures have converged into one, yet there is but one Christ and Son from both, without the diversity of the natures having been emptied or taken away on account of the union."
Following, therefore, the doctrine of these holy Fathers, we abhor all the ravings of those who confess a son coupled to a son, or that one inhabits the other, while the other is united to him—whether according to affection, or grace, or dignity, or equal honor or authority, or according to mere naming, or concord, or illumination, or according to inoperation, or that they believe the union was made personal—as the blessed Cyril says in his third chapter against Nestorius: "If anyone in one Christ divides the substances after the union, connecting them only by a bond of dignity, or authority, or power, and not rather by a coming-together into a natural unity, let him be anathema." Similarly, the blessed Gregory in his Epistle to Didonius: "If anyone," he says, "as in a prophet, while saying that God the Word worked by grace, does not confess that the union was made substantially, let him be empty of the better operation, and indeed full of the worse." Truly, the subsistence of the two natures, or the person, which to us is the venerable C
A Chalcedonian synod has handed down, we confess to be of none other than the incarnate Word of God and man made. For this reason we do not avert that opinion which some deem contrary to the synod, that is, "one nature of the Word of God incarnate," because it teaches nothing else but one subsistence or person in two united natures.
Whence also the blessed Flavian, bishop of this city, in the document which the Emperor Theodosius [entitled] *On the Faith*, in order to exclude those who proclaim two subsistences even as they proclaim two natures, did not hesitate to confess one incarnate nature of the Word of God, saying: "For indeed we confess Christ after the incarnation from the holy Virgin, or after the human nature was assumed, in one subsistence or person, one Christ, one Son, one Lord; and [as such] why do we refuse to confess one incarnate nature of the Word of God?" Wherefore B some impiously believe that the person is assigned by the synod to the man, but the subsistence to the Word of God. Not that they do not know that with the synod "subsistence" and "person" are one and the same thing, but they abuse this argument in the worst possible way, lest they openly seem to introduce two subsistences or two persons. We, however, sensing that subsistence and person are one and the same, do not say that the Trinity dwells in Christ, as is the custom of the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, as if Christ were something outside the Trinity; but we believe that God the Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered for us in the flesh, is one of the three subsistences of the one divinity. Nor are we to be afraid of those who attempt to rebuke us, saying: "I [deny?] that to divide the Trinity is to call Christ one of the Trinity," when it has been said by blessed Augustine—and what is more, "one of the three"—from the Trinity. Finally, in his book *Enchiridion*, while treating of what was said: *Born of the Word of God from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary*, among other things C he says: "But since the whole Trinity wrought that creature which the Virgin conceived and brought forth, although it pertains only to the person of the Son (for the works of the Trinity are not separable), why is Christ alone named in the making of it? Or when one of the three is named for some work, is the work of the whole Trinity understood?" Again, in the second book *On the Trinity*: "Whether," he says, "God appeared indiscriminately to our fathers before Christ came in the flesh? Or does some person from the Trinity appear singly, as if by turns?" And again after a little: "Neither does it clearly appear here, therefore," he says, "whether some person from the Trinity, or the Lord Trinity itself (of whom it was said: *You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve*) appeared to Abraham."
But a little more clearly than these, blessed Proclus, the bishop of this city, whom the venerable A Chalcedonian synod also received, spoke of this opinion to the Armenians, when he was implored by that same nation to write and refute the blasphemies of Theodore, when he impiously dogmatized a Quaternity for a Trinity, as he was combating his blasphemies, he said: "But perhaps you ask me about that novel and vain sense or empty-headedness, saying: 'Because he who confesses him who was crucified to be Christ God, he also confesses the Father and the Holy Spirit to have been crucified, if there is one nature of the Trinity.' But I, on the contrary, object to you and ask: Is he who was crucified one from the Trinity, or someone else outside the Trinity? And if indeed one, the dispute is resolved. But if someone else besides the Trinity, he is undoubtedly a fourth [being], the Lord of glory, and is a stranger to that glorification with which the Seraphim glorify. But those animals praise the Trinity and confess the unity. And if this voice does not teach falsely, how is there a fourth, [and] whom did he save whom he did not form? Or who destroyed the handwriting of sins on the cross, who has not the power to forgive sins, if he is not God according to you?" And again after a while: "But if you bring forward to me," he says, "saying: 'Because he who confesses the crucified one to be God the Son, confesses the Father and the Holy Spirit [as crucified],' you write upon water and build upon sand. Attend, therefore, to the nerves of the Catholic faith, and wash away your imprudence. For what is it that we understand? In this very essence, in which the Son is consistent and united to the Father and the Spirit, we do not say that he has suffered, but [we speak of] the flesh which was made of us and for us. He was not made [flesh] as someone else, but as one of the Trinity, and he was crucified in the flesh in which he was made, and he did not suffer in his divinity, in which he is united to the Father and the Spirit, so that we should say that they also were co-crucified. But if we were to say that he was crucified in his divinity, we would truly introduce suffering into the Trinity. But if we say that the Word received sufferings in his own flesh, we confess that it is also one from the Trinity who suffered, while [the] nature of the Trinity remained impassible." And again: "But if incarnate," he says, "he had not suffered, the very cunning objection might perhaps have a reason. But if, being incarnate, he clearly suffered, because the cause of the incarnation is the cross, then that which was crucified is that which was incarnate. But if that which was incarnate was crucified, and the Father and Spirit were not crucified, then one of the Trinity was crucified. But the divinity, by which he communicates with the Father and the Spirit, he kept impassible, while in the flesh, in which he alone was made, he and he alone suffered." Wherefore, if anyone dares to rebuke this opinion of this most blessed Father, which shines brighter than the splendor of the sun—[the opinion that] one subsistence of the whole Trinity, that is, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—he is manifestly to be rebuked for believing with Sabellius.
A For if, according to them, anyone who says that Christ is "one of the Trinity," who suffered in the flesh for us, is caught effecting a division in the Trinity, then also 536 whoever says "God from God," effects a division of the Deity. But if saying "God from God" does not effect a division of the Deity, especially since the Trinity’s divinity is one, then much more does saying "one of the Trinity" not effect a division of the Trinity. For it is not according to the fact that God is one, and that the divinity of the Trinity is one, but according to the fact that they are three—that is, the Father and Christ and the Holy Spirit—[that] one God, Christ, is said [to be] "one of the Trinity," who suffered in the flesh for us. Truly, if those who rashly dare to rebuke this statement of the whole Church, so consonant with apostolic traditions, were to observe that the Trinity is one God, and that God is from God, and one from the One, they would not hesitate in any way to say "Christ, who suffered for us in the flesh, is one of the Trinity." For if the Virgin Mary brought forth according to the flesh not the Trinity, which is one God, but God, who substantially is from God, without a doubt [he] who was born of her according to the flesh is "one of the Trinity." So, either let them—those who think this statement is contrary to the Catholic faith—confess that God, who is the Trinity, was born of woman; or if they do not dare to say this, let them say from where God is who was born of the Virgin, if he is not from the Trinity, since Catholics recognize no other God besides the Trinity. But if they truly and properly believed her to be the Mother of God, they would certainly believe that the Word of God is one of the Trinity; because it is not the God who is the Trinity who was born from her. For when the Apostle witnesses that Christ is God over all, and the Trinity is one God, it is not incongruously asked by them whether the Trinity is Christ, or if Christ is another God besides the Trinity. But perhaps Christ is even a God above the Trinity, since the Apostle witnesses him to be God over all. But if to say any of these three things is impious, it remains that the Word, who was born of the Virgin according to the flesh and became man and suffered in the flesh for us, is one of the Trinity. Hence it is that they assert the blessed Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God B only on account of the honor of that man who was born of her—whom they confess to be God by grace, not by nature. But we truly and properly believe and confess her to be the Mother of God. Because we know that the child whom she bore is God by nature, and that by him all things were made, according to the blessed Cyril, saying: "He was born man, while being God by nature, the Word of God the Father." Because, in the same way as us, he partook of blood and flesh. For thus he appeared to those on earth, not losing what he was, but by assuming the nature of humanity, perfect in its own reason.
CAPITULA AGAINST NESTORIUS
And again in the first chapter against Nestorius: "If anyone," he says, "does not confess the Truth, [and] Him who is Emmanuel, and on account of this [does not confess] the holy Virgin herself to be the Mother of God (for she bore carnally the Word, who is from God [and] has become flesh, according to what is written: 'The Word has become flesh' 5), let him be anathema." Therefore, we also confess two nativities of the Word of God: one before the ages from the Father according to divinity, the other in the most recent times according to humanity from the holy Virgin. Because we do not believe in one son of the mother and another son of the father, but we recognize one and the same natural Son of the Father [and] natural Son of the mother, as the blessed Pope Leo says to Flavian: "For when God and almighty, eternal Father is believed, the Son is also demonstrated to be coeternal with him, in nothing differing from the Father, because God is born of God, the almighty of the almighty, the coeternal of the eternal. He is not posterior in time, not inferior in power, not dissimilar in glory, not divided in essence: but the same is the coeternal Only-Begotten of the sempiternal Begetter. Born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary: which temporal nativity neither diminished nor deferred anything from that divine and sempiternal nativity, but expended its whole self upon restoring man who had been deceived." According to the opinion of this blessed Father, God is taught to have become Christ, but Christ is not taught to have become God, as the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, say, who believe that Christ became God through progress. Because, when He was rich, He was made poor, not when He was poor, He was made rich, that He might make us rich. As the Psalmist also testifies, saying: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved justice, and hated iniquity, therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions 7." How, however, could God be anointed or have companions, unless he became man? And therefore the wonders and the passions are rightly believed to be of one and the same incarnate Word of God and man made, because it is not "one God, another man," but the same God, the same man, according to that opinion of Pope Leo, saying: "That the impassible God did not disdain to become a passible man, and to be subject to the laws of death." Compliant with these, the blessed Cyril also [says] against Nestorius: "If anyone, he says, does not confess that the Word of God suffered C in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, D and tasted death in the flesh, and was made the firstborn from the dead, according to what he is life and vivifies us as God, let him be anathema." According to the catholic sense of these, therefore, [and] of all the holy Fathers, we accept the four councils, that is, the Nicene of the three hundred and eighteen, and [that of] the hundred and fifty who gathered in this royal city, and that which was gathered in Ephesus, over which the most blessed patriarchs Celestine and Cyril presided, with all that was done there against Nestorius or against any heresy whatsoever, and also that which we follow and em-
we embrace, the venerable Council of Chalcedon, and all the writings of the holy Fathers, who felt one and the same according to the definitions of these councils; but we anathematize all who doubt, or retract, or judge them imperfect, or who deem them alien to the faith of the holy Fathers. Likewise, therefore, we anathematize all the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and of Nestorius his disciple, and all who think like them. To these we add Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy, Elusius, Peter of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch, and Acacius of Constantinople, with all their followers, and successors, A communicants and accomplices, or those who are in any way stained by their contagion, or who celebrate the memories of those who have died in that very condemnation, or who defend the innocent.
These things being so, most blessed ones, we now believe that it is necessary to make manifest to your holiness, by briefly explaining, what we hold concerning the grace of God—not that by which we are created, but that by which we are recreated and renewed. This is because in this matter also, the enemies of the grace of God, that is, the followers of Pelagius and Coelestius, seem to be too hostile to us. Therefore, we confess that Adam was created by God upright in all things, neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of both, having in the power of his own free will both the will and the ability for all things, that is, for both good and evil; that he, deceived by the craftiness of the cunning serpent, became a transgressor of the divine precept of his own accord, and on account of this, by the just judgment of God, became subject not only to the death of the body, but also of the soul, and despoiled of his former honor, having become like the beasts—not that he became irrational, but because his rational vigor was bound by carnal delight; finally, he immediately felt, by the merit of his disobedience, a law B contrary in his own members, fighting against the law of his mind, and taking him captive in the law of sin. We believe that this evil, and the punishment of this evil, has passed upon the whole human race. For not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, as some wish to say, but also the sting of death, that is, sin, has entered into the world. For we do not acquiesce to them, but rather to the Apostle, who testifies that both sin and death have passed through unto all men, saying: *By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so unto all* [Rom. v, 12] *men death hath passed, in whom all have sinned*.
Therefore, we believe that recent infants from the womb are baptized not only to merit the adoption of sons, or on account of the kingdom of heaven (as Pelagius and Coelestius, or the disciples of Theodore of Mopsuestia who attempt to affirm that there is one and the same natural and original sin, think), but for the remission of sins, lest they perish eternally. The vigor of nature, therefore, having been weakened by the evil of transgression, was in no way able to rise again by itself from where it had fallen by its own will. Therefore, we believe that no one from Adam until now has been saved by the vigor of nature, except by the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the faith of the name of Jesus. For *there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby it behoveth* [Act. iv, 12] *us to be saved*, except in the name of Jesus Christ. We believe that the natural free will—we believe—is of no value except for discerning and desiring carnal or earthly things, which perhaps can appear glorious not before God, but before men. But as to those things which pertain to eternal life, it can neither think, nor will, nor desire, nor perform them, except through the infusion and operation within of the Holy Spirit, who is also the Spirit of Christ. *For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his* [Rom. VIII, 9]. But if any man believes in Christ, he is already Christ’s. As is also true, it is not, however, by the gift of nature, but by the Holy Spirit, who is of Christ. For he who now believes in him who justifies the ungodly, so that he may confess that Jesus is Lord, which *no man can say, but in the Holy Spirit* [I Cor. XII, 3]. Therefore, C we anathematize those who say that nature or any substance is sin. We also abhor those who dare to say against the voice of the Apostle: "It is ours to will, but God’s to perform," when the same doctor testifies that both to will and to perform is a divine gift, he himself saying: *For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, for good will* [Philipp. II, 13]. We also believe that all from Abel unto Christ, if any were saved, were saved by that same grace by which we are saved, according to the voice of the blessed Apostle Peter saying: *Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers* D *nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus we believe to be saved, in like manner as they* [Act. XV, 10, 11].
OF THE SAME: CAPITULA AGAINST THE NESTORIANS
That these twelve anathemas are those protests which the Scythian monks publicly posted at Rome, when they had fled secretly from the city in which they were kept under guard by the holy pontiff Hormisdas, is not entirely alien to what Baronius conjectures in volume VII, year 520, chapter 25. Concerning the first…