is called the incarnate soul, or one nature of the incarnate soul. And therefore they are forced to teach the name of that one nature, which can have an express signification of divinity and humanity. A But if they have been so foolish as to say that it is the nature of Christ, it is demanded of them again what that may be. Because "Christ" is a name not of nature, but of operation or efficiency, that is, of anointing; and therefore they are still hemmed in, so that they might teach the name of that singular nature which they wish to exist in Christ after the union. B For there is no nature of a thing that cannot, by a proper and singular name according to a specific meaning, have the name of its nature. But it is manifest that Christ is not the name of a nature, but of an anointing—and from this, that many have been called Christs in the Old Testament. Wherefore either let them teach the name of that one nature, which is most rightly sought by them, or if they can in no wise do this (because it is utterly impossible), let them not fear to profess, setting aside the darkness of their error, two natures in one person of Christ, not before but after the union, and thereafter remaining indissolubly—lest, confessing only a human Christ with the Jews, or only a divine one with the Manichaeans, they be condemned by the one and Catholic mother Church and be tormented forever.
DIALOGUES OF JOANNES MAXENTIUS AGAINST THE NESTORIANS TO THEOPHILUS
PRÆFATIO
If in this age there could be an end to falsehood, the Church of Christ would surely remain quiet; but because an inextricable evil never ceases in some way to strike at human hearts and to disturb the Catholic faith with unexpected arguments, it is necessary for the followers of the truth to prudently foresee the captious sentiments of that evil, to wisely uncover them, to restrain them when brought into the open with the hammer of truth, and to contend for the truth against them even to the shedding of blood. Especially when Divine Scripture warns and says: "Strive not against the truth, and be ashamed of the lie of thy ignorance," and "Be not ashamed to say the truth for thy soul, even unto death." Similarly, the Apostle, noting the timidity of some, says: "You have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." Therefore one must resist, and heretics must by no means be spared, trusting that in such a matter a supply of speech will not be lacking. For if, to confute a prophet's folly, the mouth of an ass was opened, how much more will He deign to unlock the heart of a believer so that the madness of the perfidious may be refuted? Wherefore, because the Nestorian perversity, long ago condemned at the root, now rises again in a way more lively, and, fighting with cunning syllogistic arguments against the very foundations of the Catholic faith, contends to profane religion under a religious pronunciation of words, I have necessarily believed, my Theophilus, aided by your prayers, that I ought to expose their impious intellect, hidden and lurking under Catholic words, so that, once detected and marked, it might become clear to all everywhere. Dealing at the same time against those who, although they confess Christ the Lord, yet, led by I know not what perversity, decline to confess Him as one from the holy and undivided Trinity. As they are unwilling to assert this, who does not understand that they deny in other words the very thing they say, and believe nothing else regarding Christ than that He is a stranger to the Trinity, and, according to the Arians, impiously believe Him to be a creature? For if He is true God as He is, He is either the Trinity, or one of the Trinity. But because it is sacrilege to believe Christ to be the whole Trinity, it remains that Christ is one God from the Trinity. Unless perhaps they contend that He is another God besides the Trinity, which is the property not of Catholics, but of Manichaeans, who introduce two gods contrary to each other. It has pleased [me], therefore, under the persona of an interrogating heretic and a Catholic respondent, to explain this little work of our disputation, by which the resolution of the objections might more easily shine forth to the readers.
BOOK FIRST
CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST BOOK
I. On the mode of the title Theotokos, that is, Mother of God. II. That heretics acknowledge the blessed Virgin as Theotokos, not because she brought forth God according to the flesh, but because she brought forth a man united to God.III. That they foolishly calumniate the beginning given to the Word of God from a woman, against those who truly and properly confess Him to have been born of a woman according to the flesh. A IV. That they cunningly and perversely affirm her to be the mother of His humanity. V. That from those evangelical voices which are read as spoken to Joseph the Spouse of the holy Virgin, they endeavor to maintain that He was not the mighty God according to the Prophet, but merely a pure man, who is called the mighty God only on account of Him to whom he merited to be united, and that he was born of a woman. VI. Concerning that which is written: "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." VII. Concerning the fact that they cunningly profess that it was not God who was made, but Christ who was made God. VIII. That they foolishly assert that Christ is God, not by nature, but by dignity and union: on account of that which is written in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter said to Cornelius: "For God was with him." IX. That they wickedly confess that this differs from the Prophets only in this, that He was not born from the seed of man, although they contend iniquitously that the Word of God was united to Christ, not after the conformation, but in the very act of conformation. B X. That they confess that there are two natures, and likewise two subsistences or persons, in Christ. XI. That they perversely assert that it was a man assumed by God, and not God made man, and that they define the nature itself to be what the person is. XII. That there are proper names of natures and of a person which cause no question, and others that are common which might fall into question. XIII. What the difference is between natures and person, and that not every nature is a person. XIV. That the heretics detest believing both that God was made man, and the nativity of the Word of God according to the flesh.
INTERLOCUTORS. NESTORIANUS, CATHOLICUS.
CHAPTER ONE.
NESTORIANUS. Having long heard you as the denigrator of our statements, my spirit was often incited to inquire with you concerning the sacrament of the divine dispensation. Now, however, in a convenient place and time, because your presence—a gift to us from God—is here, I desire greatly that you argue with me present, you who do not cease to disparage me while I am absent.
CATHOLICUS. He who shows himself to be a follower not of falsehood but of truth is not moved by the murmurings of complainers. But whose spirit is conscious of its own falsity, even if no one complains of him, is yet incessantly troubled by the goads of suspicion. But a lying defamation of malevolent men takes nothing from the prudent; nay, rather it contributes to them. For if anyone is truly reproved for such things, he is to be corrected, lest they reprove him further; if they do so untruthfully, they are rather to be condemned and banished. Therefore, if, as you yourself estimate, I am the denigrator of your assertions, act now as you have desired, and, showing yourself a follower of truth, brand me as your most false accuser. C
N. Leaving these things aside, if you please, let us bring into the midst for discussion those matters which each of us, with a simple mind, judges to be in accordance with Catholic dogmas, lest we seem to have spent our time on things that do not pertain to the matter.
C. It is indeed most agreeable and very pleasing to me, with insults removed, always to inquire about the truth.
N. Injuries are accustomed to provide support to those whose zeal is not for the truth, but to glory in their own victory. In those, however, who with their whole intention desire to rejoice in discovered truth, such things have absolutely no place. D Even truth itself is wont to intimate itself joyfully, when it sees that the minds of those disputing are proceeding with a simple intention toward the investigation of itself. The end of our discussion will therefore without doubt be fruitful, if only furious contention is removed from the midst.
N. This is indeed my intention entirely, if only you, too, will deem it worthy to respond with a calm spirit to my questions.
C. Advance what you will, so that we may now see those things that you desire to know from me.
N. I wish, therefore, that you make it plain to me in what manner, by you, the blessed Virgin is called Theotokos, that is, the Mother of God, whom it is established she brought forth, Emmanuel.
C. The very foundations of your question, of themselves, manifest that you believe in two sons.
N. Do not, I beseech you, before you diligently discuss the rationale of my statements, attack me with calumnious words.
C. No one rightly complains that calumny is brought against him whom not another, but his own words, rather, refute. But if I have not been able to understand the meaning of your question, attribute this to my ignorance, provided that you explain more clearly, since you have posited that you desire the manner of the appellation of "Theotokos" to be made plain to you, [her] whom it is established she brought forth, Emmanuel. For if, in inquiring into the manner of the title "Theotokos," you also believed that Emmanuel, whom you said was born of the Virgin, is the Son of God, it would suffice to say in what way the blessed Virgin is called Theotokos by you. By adding, however, "whom it is established she brought forth, Emmanuel," you have shown, as it is given to understand, that you do not believe Emmanuel to be the Son of God.
N. Never, as you assert, do I [not]—if I had not believed [him to be] the Son of God...
yet I desire to know the manner in which the blessed Virgin is called Theotokos by you.
C. If Emmanuel, whom you confess to be born of the blessed Virgin, has always been believed by you to be the Son of God, and the Son of God is none other than God, then the blessed Virgin is entirely rightly believed by us to be the Theotokos. A
N. You consider that you have explained the reason for the question proposed, as if there were nothing left to be asked about this matter.
C. Speak, come, what do you wish, and do not suffer any constraints of delay.
N. Although I do not refuse to confess the blessed Virgin as Theotokos, I do not confess her as such because she gave birth to God, but because she gave birth to a man united to God; for this reason I confess her [as] Theotokos.
CHAPTER II
C. What was hidden until now has been completely revealed. For if the holy Virgin Mary did not give birth to God, but to a man united to God, she is without doubt, according to you, Anthropotokos—that is, the bearer of a man, not Theotokos. By what logic, then, do you confess the same virgin to be Theotokos, whom you proclaim to have given birth, not to God, but only to a man?
N. It is by the union that it has come about that He who was born of her is called God, on account of God, namely, to whom he merited to be united and to have one and the same dignity and authority.
C. Therefore, by title and dignity or honor only, and not truly and properly, is the blessed Virgin, according to you, the Theotokos, since she did not truly and properly give birth according to the flesh to God the Word, but to a man, to whom it was granted by Him, to whom he merited to be united, that he be called God, which he is not. B
CHAPTER III
N. If the blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to God by nature, she is already the mother not of the flesh, but of the divinity; and how do you not proclaim him to be God the Word according to his divinity, which is common to Him with the Father, born of the Virgin according to the flesh?
C. She is not the Mother of the divinity, as you suppose us to believe, although she is truly and properly the Mother of God, because she brought forth not the divinity of God the Word, but God the Word made man from her, just as was said above.
N. If we have granted that God was truly and properly born of the Virgin, I fear that God the Word might be understood as having an origin from a woman, without having an origin [beforehand].
CHAPTER IV
C. And why should we not grant Him an origin according to the flesh from a woman, He who is without origin from the Father according to his divinity?
N. How is He, who is without origin from the Father, said by you to have an origin according to the flesh? I do not understand: do you mean that He who is without origin from the Father, in being turned from divinity into flesh, is said to have received an origin? Or is it because, though He was without origin, He is said to have an origin because flesh was assumed?
C. The inconvertible God cannot be turned into flesh at all, but, remaining God, perfect in his own divinity, uniting Himself to flesh and a rational soul, He began to be a human being, which He was not before, and by this reasoning, He who is from the Father without any origin is said to have an origin according to the flesh.
N. Since the question concerns the highest and most essential matters, I ask that you answer patiently regarding those things which I ask. And let not those things which, perhaps, seem contrary to you before you understand them, disturb you.
C. You remind me of patience, as if I had replied impatiently to your questions until now.
N. Since this is what disturbs us greatly, because you proclaim that God was truly and properly born of a woman, and for this reason you acknowledge the blessed Virgin as the Mother of God, I ask, who truly and properly acts as the generator: does he beget of the same substance as himself, or of some other?
C. An exceedingly foolish and absurd question; for who is ever believed to be the generator of another's substance?
N. If you judge it foolish and absurd to believe that anyone is the generator of another's substance, then it is established that God the Word was truly and properly generated not from the mother, but from the Father, with whom He has one and the same substance. Otherwise, the Mother of the Lord will, without doubt, be consubstantial not only with God the Word, whom she is believed by you to have truly and properly brought forth, but also with God the Father, to whom the same God the Word is consubstantial.
C. He who does not believe that God the Word is consubstantial with the Virgin—not according to his divinity, which is one and the same with the Father, but according to the flesh—is a stranger to the faith. Indeed, because she did not give birth to just any man who is not God by nature, but to God the Word incarnate, and made man from her, for this cause... C
N. Not so, but I advise you to restrain yourself with the gentleness you have begun with.
C. This is a gift of God.
N. Do you confess our Lord Jesus Christ in one or in two substances?
C. In two, without doubt, but united in a natural, not a personal, union.
CHAPTER V
N. Not yet having finished the question at hand, you have rushed ahead to another; but, putting aside for now the inquiry concerning the natural union, I ask you to answer straightforwardly: do you assert that Christ, whom you have confessed to be in two natures, was born of the Father only, or also of the Mother?
C. I confess that one and the same Christ was born both of the Father and of the Mother.
N. In one way of the Mother, and in another of the Father? Or in one and the same way of the Father and of the Mother?
C. In one way, without doubt, of the Father, and in another way of the Mother.
N. According to which mode do you assert that He was born of the Father, or of the Mother?
C. According to divinity, indeed, of the Father; the same according to humanity, of the Mother.
N. Why, then, is she A truly and properly preached by you as the Theotokos, the Mother of the Lord, and not rather [as the Mother] of that nature whose mother she is, to which the union of the Word of God conferred the designation and dignity of His own divinity? Whose nature do you believe this humanity to be, which you argue is truly and properly from the Virgin?
N. Without doubt, of the Lord Christ.
C. What do you define Christ to be?
N. God and man.
C. Is that nature of humanity, therefore, which you say is truly and properly from the Virgin, made of God and man?
N. Who could doubt this?
C. And how is it not absurd to believe that God and man assumed a human nature from the Virgin? For if God and man is believed, according to you, to have assumed a human nature, from whence, before God assumed a human nature from the Virgin, is He to be believed to have been made man? So that thus God and man may be believed to have assumed a human nature from the Virgin.
N. I marvel that you so rashly deride the truth.
C. Not at all do I deride the truth, but I refute the absurdity of your answer with the most truthful reasoning.
N. You are offended (as it seems to me) when you hear Christ called God and man.
C. It does not offend me to hear Christ called God and man; but it offends you, who do not believe that Christ was made man. For since I had simply answered your questions—that I believe one and the same [person] begotten both of the Father according to divinity and of the Mother according to humanity—you, wishing to show God of the Father and man of the Mother, conclude as if by consequential reasoning and strive to teach that she ought not to be believed truly and properly the Mother of God, but [only the mother] of the human nature, of which she is the mother. If, therefore, God the Word, assuming flesh from maternal bowels, formed Himself into man, without doubt no other nature of humanity was assumed from the Virgin than that which He Himself who formed Himself from her made, and therefore the holy Virgin is truly and properly believed to be the Theotokos according to the flesh, because God was not converted into the nature of flesh, so that He who was born would not be God, but remaining God, He was made and born as man.
N. You strive upward and downward (as I see it) for nothing else than to teach that He whom the Virgin brought forth is God by nature: but the evangelical voices, which in no way allow Him who was born of the Virgin to be preached as God, stand in the way against me.
C. And what are those voices that prohibit me from preaching God born of the Virgin?
N. Those, indeed, which are read as having been done to Joseph in dreams.
CHAPTER VI.
C. And what such thing is read as said to Him?
N. "Take," He says, "the child and his mother, and flee into Egypt; for it will come to pass that Herod will seek to destroy the child." And again: "They are dead who were seeking the life of the child." Was it said: "They are dead who were seeking the life of God?" Or "Take God and flee into Egypt?" Or surely, "It will come to pass that Herod will seek to destroy God?" What can be more iniquitous than this, that God should be believed to have fled into Egypt on account of man? Whence it is manifest that you labor with vain arguments against the sentiments of the divine oracles, who teach that He—whom you try to maintain is God by nature—is [only] the child, that is, the man.
C. While you are excessively intent upon these words of Divine Scripture, which you think fit your own side, you despise others entirely. Or perhaps does the authority of the Old Testament seem vile and contemptible to you, which proclaims the child, whom you deny to be God, as the mighty God, the Ruler? Did not that most excellent of prophets, Isaiah, cry out, saying: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and he shall be called the Angel of the great counsel, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the mighty God, the Ruler, the Prince of peace, the Father of the world to come." Is it believable that you are ignorant of these things? Unless perhaps you judge the sentiment of the prophet to be contrary to those evangelical testimonies you have brought forward?
N. I do not judge the sentiment of the prophet to be contrary to the evangelical testimonies, but it seems so to you, who have not yet been able to attain their understanding. Attend, therefore, if you wish, to the most pure understanding of the prophetic sentiment you have brought forward, and see how it is not contrary to our assertions; finally, the prophet testifies indeed that the child born and the son given is called God, but is not [God] in essence: "And he shall be called," he says, "the Angel of the great counsel, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the mighty God." For not all things which are called [something] immediately also possess the reality of their calling. In short, Moses was called God, but he is in no way believed to possess the reality of this calling. Here we are taught that the child is not God by nature, but is called God by the prophet on account of God who is united to him.
C. Manifest impiety: for according to this sense of your exposition, then that which is said, "a child is born," is in no way to be understood as substantially born: because if the mighty God is the same child, as he is called by the prophet, according to you he is not substantially [that], because, as you say, Moses also is called God, which he is not substantially: therefore, that which is said, "a child is born," is not substantially born, because many are said to be born, who nonetheless are not born substantially, just as you have: "The people who shall be born, whom..."
the Lord hath made." And the Apostle says to them, who already existed substantially: "For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you." Finally, this interpretation of yours also maintains that what the whole Catholic Church confesses—namely, that the Son of God is born God of the Father substantially—is falsely taught, and that one says the Son is born of the Father, but not born of him substantially, just as the Arians do. And how is the child God believed to be born substantially, who, according to you, is understood to be born substantially neither of mother nor of father?
N. Do not, I beseech you, waste time on trivialities. For we believe and preach that the Son of God, detesting the impiety of Arius, was born substantially of God the Father, and we undoubtedly confess that the child born of the Virgin was born substantially, whom also, because of him who is united to him, we call God, following the prophet.
C. Is the child, therefore, not God by nature, but by calling, like Moses?
N. If the child is God not by calling and dignity, but by nature, you either believe his flesh is consubstantial with God the Father, or you confess the child born of the Virgin to be incorporeal.
C. We do not confuse the diversity of the natures, as was answered to you above. For we believe neither that the divinity of the Word was changed into human nature, nor, on the other hand, that the human was changed into the essence of the divinity; nevertheless, we confess Christ not, as you assert, made God, but God made Christ (which displeases you). For he did not become rich when he was poor, but when he was rich, he became poor, that he might make us rich. Nor did he, when he was in the form of a servant, receive the form of God, but when he was in the form of God, he took the form of a servant. Similarly, not when he was flesh did he become the Word, but when he was the Word, he became flesh. But what you say: "If the child is God by nature, born of the Virgin, the disciples in the Acts of the Apostles lie, testifying not to God, but to the child Jesus as anointed." They do not lie, but you are rather deceived, who do not understand God to be anointed according to the flesh. For if you believe that the disciples and the prophet spoke not by a contrary, but by one spirit, hear the prophet clearly teaching and saying of the anointed God: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." From this it clearly appears that there is no other anointed child Jesus but God, and no other God anointed but the child Jesus, if indeed you do not doubt that the prophets and apostles preached one Christ, and not two.
C. You deem that we do not believe the child is incorporeal; we, on the contrary, preach that God for your sake was made flesh according to the teaching of the Gospel, whose flesh we believe to be consubstantial not with God the Father, but with the mother. But we profess that the divinity is consubstantial not with the mother, but with God the Father.
N. I am utterly unable to understand the shifting and varied sense of your assertion, at one moment confusing, at another distinguishing the natures. If, therefore, you preach that the divinity is consubstantial with the Father, but the flesh with the mother, how, while confusing this healthy distinction of natures, do you again assert that God was made flesh, since God is not a body, but Spirit, the Lord saying: "God is a Spirit"?
C. Confessing the true agreement of the natures of God the Word and the flesh, we do not confuse, but unite them, because we preach that he was not turned into flesh, but being united to flesh, was made man.
N. I utterly abhor those who preach two Christs, because I do not doubt that the prophet and the apostles spoke by one spirit, but I consider you to be of a contrary mind, because you endeavor to destroy him whom even you yourself preach as anointed, as being God by nature, as if by the sentiment of the prophet. For since the prophet preaches that he is God anointed by God, whom he also teaches to have fellows, you conclude that he who is God by nature—who has no one as a fellow according to his nature—is the one taught to be anointed; whereas God has no fellows at all, just as he has no brothers. But he [the child] is taught to have fellows, of whom the Apostle says: "Forasmuch therefore as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner hath been partaker of the same." And who said: "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the Church will I praise thee." Whence it evidently appears that he whom the prophet testifies as anointed above his fellows is God not by nature, but by union.
N. When God says that "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit," how do you assert that the child born of a woman is God not by union, but by nature?
C. Because no one else is born of the flesh carnally as flesh, except he who is born of the spirit spiritually as spirit. Therefore, finally, we preach God the Son of God from two and in two natures, united and unconfused.
N. But you confuse the diversity of these natures, preaching as God by nature him who is called God by the union of God the Word. For if he who is born of the Virgin is God not by union, but by nature, it is without a doubt God who is anointed, and not the child Jesus Christ. And thus, Christ is no longer believed to be made God, but rather, according to you, God is understood to be made Christ, and the disciples lie in the Acts of the Apostles, testifying not to God, but to the child Jesus as anointed and saying: "For of a truth there assembled together in this city against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, Herod, and Pontius Pilate."
A Q. How do you assert that you abhor those who preach two Christs, when you are convicted of preaching two sons quite clearly? N. And where have you heard me preach two sons? C. In this, that when you say, not him who is God by nature is anointed, but him who is taught by the prophet to have participants, who is called God by the anointing of God. N. I do not preach two sons, as you suppose, but one, because I profess one appellation of Son, and one dignity, both of him who is God by nature, and of him who is God by God's anointing. But that he who is anointed is God not by nature, but by the union of God, hear the blessed Apostle Peter saying to Cornelius: "The Word," he says, "he sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ, this is Lord of all. You know what has been done through the whole of Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him." B Without doubt, it is not with God, but with Jesus of Nazareth, anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, that God is recognized to be. For how is it not impious to believe that he who is anointed is God by nature, to whom no nature can without doubt offer resistance? But he is anointed who was to fight against the devil. C. You argue with crafty deceit, indeed, but you do not in any way depart from the preaching of two sons. For if Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, is not God, as you assert, whom does the prophet preach as coming from Libanus, saying: "God shall come from Libanus, and the Holy One from a shady and dense mountain"? For Nazareth is shown to this day at the root of this mountain in the parts of Galilee, where God Jesus Christ, whom the prophet predicted would come from Libanus, deigned to be nourished according to the flesh. But as for what you strive to prove—that Jesus Christ is not God by nature, but by God's union and dignity, from the fact that it was said: "God was with him"—I marvel that you do not hear the same Lord saying: "And I am not alone, but the Father is with me." Jesus Christ of Nazareth is therefore God by nature, as we have learned from the prophet, and the Father is without doubt God with him. For this reason, he is finally shown by the voice of the Apostle himself to be Lord of all. Otherwise, if for the reason that it was said, "God was with him," the Father is not with the Son, but "God the Son" is to be understood as being with Jesus Christ, then he was without doubt equal to all the prophets, or at least to Joseph the son of Jacob, because it was written of him also: "And God was with him." To Jacob himself also, as he was setting out for Charan, God says: "I will be with thee as I was with thy father." And therefore it is most impious to equate the Savior of all with those who have been saved. N. I compare [him] neither to the prophets, nor to Jacob or A Joseph, we believe, the Savior of all, but as incomparably more excellent. For although God was with them, not however without the seed of a man, but they were born by the law of nature. But Christ the Lord was born in a new mode of birth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and precisely in the very formation he was made Christ. C. If Christ is not equal to the prophets, or to Joseph, or to any of the saints, he will certainly be equal, according to us, to John the Baptist or to Jeremiah, who were sanctified in the very formation, just as God says to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee." N. Christ is not equal to those sanctified in the womb, because while they are sanctified in the womb, he truly becomes Christ in the formation. And they indeed receive a particular grace, but he is full of grace, as being the only-begotten of God. C. I do not understand how you say that Christ was made in the very formation; therefore show clearly who is this Christ who was made Christ in the very formation. N. Christ is without doubt the Only-Begotten of the Father. C. What you had hitherto opposed, you have now confessed, compelled by the truth itself, though unwilling. For you who had hitherto refused to say that Christ was made God, now, although you deny that he, according to the flesh, formed himself, you have nevertheless confessed that in the very formation he was made Christ-God. N. Do not by any means think that I have been circumvented by your subtleties, for I said that the Only-Begotten was made Christ in the very formation for this reason: because I believe the Word of God was conjoined to that very formation of flesh. C. He who says that the Word of God was conjoined to the flesh in the very formation of the flesh, does not teach that the Word of God assumed human nature in his own subsistence, without a person, but shows that the subsistence of the Word of God is annexed to the subsistence of the flesh, which, while it was being extended in the lineaments of the members, [is shown to be annexed]. Whence it is denoted that we must believe not in one, but in two subsistences or persons of the incarnate Word of God and of the man who was made. But the Catholic faith confesses not [that this happened] by the formation itself, as you assert, but that the Word of God himself, according to the flesh, was formed by himself, and was made man, while the substance of his divinity remained intact. N. What then have you denied of the subsistence of the Word of God? For this that you say forces one to understand this: that he was formed by himself and was made man; although you craftily confirm in your subsequent statements that this same [being] was made [man] with the diminution of his divinity. C. I do not in any way deny that the Word of God subsists.
A N. Since, therefore, you say that the Word of God subsists and also a man, why do you confess one subsistence and not two? C. Because I do not believe that the Word of God is united to a man already remaining in his own subsistence, or even to a flesh that is formed and ensouled—by which the person of any given human is understood—but [I believe] that the subsistence, or person, of the Word of God has taken upon itself the human nature, which never exists as common [or] apart from the Word of God, but has been brought forth through Him, taken up by Him, made to be of His own nature, and remains not in its own, but in Him by whom it was taken up—that is, the subsistence or person of the Word of God. And therefore there are not two subsistences, but of two natures, namely of the Word and of the flesh, there is one subsistence or person. N. Therefore has the human nature become divinity? C. To accept this even in thought is proven to be the height of madness. N. How then do you say that the proper human nature of the Word of God is made? C. Because it is not that of any other, but of the Word of God made man. N. Do you assert that God was made man in such a way that He was, as it were, changed into a man? Or do you preach that God was made man because of the man taken up by Him? C. I dare in no way say that a man was taken up by God, but I confess that God was made man without diminution of His divinity, lest, if I said a man was taken up by God, I might seem to preach two persons in the Son of God—since God is also called the helper and taker-up of the holy and of the faithful, according to that which is said to Him in the canticle of Exodus: "He became my helper and protector for salvation." (Exod. xv, 2). It is better, therefore, to say that human nature was taken up by God than that a man was taken up. N. Certain stupendous things are being brought to my ears by you, as if it were something different and not the same thing to say "man" or "human nature," when man is nothing other than human nature. C. Truly, this is the cause of your error, and none other. For while you are unable to discern what the difference is between a person and a nature, understanding that nature is the same thing as a person, or rather not believing at all that nature can exist without a person, you confuse the terms of person and nature, and you undoubtedly preach two persons entirely, just as you preach two natures of the one Son of God. For when we say that the Word of God was born of the Virgin according to the flesh, you estimate that we preach that His nature of divinity was born of the Virgin. But if this were believed by us—which God forbid—we would not confess Him to be born of the Virgin according to the flesh. Again, when you hear [us say] that the human nature taken up by Him B from the Word of God, you do not believe that He was made the same man. Hence, neither truly nor properly do you deign to believe the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God, because you believe that not the Word of God was made man immutably from her womb, but that a man united to God was born from her. N. Because you argue that we are incapable of discerning what is between nature and person, teach you that there is a nature without a person: or what terms can be fittingly applied to natures without a person. C. Of both natures and person there are proper and common names; and the proper ones indeed cause no question, but the common ones, which are cunningly presumed by false teachers, cast some fog of doubt upon the simpler ones. N. What are the names that either bring or do not bring a question? C. Deity, certainly, and humanity, flesh, and divinity, are proper names of natures; but the Word, or Jesus Christ, and if any such [names] are found, are proper names of a person, just as Paul and Peter are those of the apostles. But the name of God signifies the entire divinity of the Trinity of God and man, and so too [it signifies] each person from the Trinity. For God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit, and the whole Trinity together is one God. Again, "man," just as it signifies a person, so also it signifies a nature. Whence even some holy Fathers are proven to say that a man was assumed by God—not looking toward the person, as you do, but rather toward the nature. N. I assent fully to the things which have been brought forward by you, if only you can say that nature is in a person. C. Human nature, although it is entirely derived into individual persons, nonetheless, not any one person or one man—that is, an individual—is the whole humanity proved to be; otherwise the countless men or persons of this general humanity would in no wise exist. A person is therefore distinguished from a nature, because persons signify one individual thing of a nature. But nature is known to declare a common matter, from which many persons could subsist. Wherefore, every person indeed D contains a nature, but not every nature equally embraces a person: otherwise Catholics would confess three natures of that holy and ineffable Trinity, just as they confess three persons. N. You seem to me to assert a certain unsubstantial and empty nature, which you say has no person. C. C. Does the nature of the highest and incomprehensible Trinity seem unsubstantial to you? For when it is one and singular, yet no one of the Catholics doubts that it subsists in three persons. However, because a creature does not dispute about its Creator without great danger, if it pleases, let us come to our own—that is, to...
let us pass over human nature, regarding which, if any offense—which God forbid—should occur, it is considered less grave, especially since the question of it is also now being debated among us, so that from this, as much as possible, what is sought may become clear, lest, namely, the nature which we do not yet claim subsists in a person should seem to you to be insubstantial. A
N. Be it as you wish, provided that what is being sought is explained.
C. Do not let the quality of nature, which is diffused into many persons and individuals, seem to you to be insubstantial, as if it were nothing. Otherwise, how should the Creator of all natures be believed to have made all things good and very good? But for this reason the nature, which contains the force and rationale of the common material, is considered insubstantial by cruder minds, because they attend less to the material of the other person not yet apparent, [thinking it] a different person: which, as I said, not yet brought to light, the natural power shows to be perfect in all its bodily lineaments in a certain way. And therefore you do not rightly estimate nature as substance, without which no person can subsist. According to this reasoning, we also speak when judging vitiated bodies. It is not less of a nature; for it is not because it is hidden that it is to be believed to be nothing or imperfect; but this force is entirely in our limbs, and it lies hidden perfect, and wholly according to its proper rationale in the material of the seed. For who would rightly judge that a small child not yet using reason has an imperfect human nature? For because it cannot use reason at the time, it will not therefore be proven that something is lacking to it from the definition of human nature; since, as the ancients defined it, man is nothing other than a rational mortal animal. Or perhaps, because small children do not use reason, will someone attempt to assert that they are irrational animals, whom, at a suitable time, not reason arriving from the outside, but nature from within, providing it, will enrich? Therefore, human nature, which lies hidden in the material of the seed, is not either nothing, or imperfect, before it is formed into its own subsistence by God creating from it, but is altogether perfect, according to which rationale also Levi, long before he was sown in the womb or conceived, is read to have been tithed in the loins of Abraham. B But no thing can be tithed that does not exist. That thing, therefore, or nature, which is in the occult, as long as it is brought to light, is valued as if it were less than substance by those who understand less. But when by the nod of God, through the series of generation, the force of the seed has been transfused in the female womb, then what was hidden in the members is extended, and is declared in its own person. Therefore, into this human nature, which is general and common to all men, without which no person can (as we said above) subsist, in the womb of the holy Virgin, who through faith was deemed worthy to conceive God, God the Word deigned to unite himself; and from the material of her entrails, without any seed of man, by his own power and virtue, without any diminution of his status, he creates himself according to the flesh, progresses in the members, becomes man, sustains for our salvation a second birth, [and] finally grows to the increase of age. Therefore he is truly and properly preached by Catholics as born of the holy Virgin according to the flesh. Hence, truly and properly, the same holy Virgin is believed to be the Theotokos. C
N. Everything that was argued above by you, although it seemed to be discussed in an involved manner, this final conclusion confounded, which boldly expressed that God was made man and—what is more intolerable—[described] a second birth of God the Word: since no thing can be born a second time substantially. But when God is made man, as is preached by you, when that is said to come to pass which does not yet seem to exist, or [when] from that which is, it is turned into that so that it ceases to be what it was?
C. Hence, indeed, there is the tremendous and admirable second birth of our God according to the flesh, which is without doubt proved to be a sacrament of piety, which is denied by the impious, because it was not, but he who was is born: and not according to that which he was, but according to that which he was not, he is formed by his own condescension. For he who was naturally without beginning born of the Father, the same one is born in time naturally for us of the mother. There [he is] according to divinity; here, the same one made man from man, similarly not according to that which he was, but according to that which he was not. For God who was, becomes man, without his own conversion, which he was not. Therefore the argument brought forth by you is valid against one who contends that something which is, is born or made a second time according to that which it is; but as for us, it pertains to nothing, who do not preach that God was made man a second time and born a second time according to that which he was. But now, if it pleases, let this be the end of this disputation. If, however, anything remains, let it be sought from the beginning of another conversation. D
BOOK SECOND
CHAPTERS OF THE SECOND BOOK
I. Concerning the natural union of God the Word made toward his own flesh. II. That Christ is taught to be composed from divinity and humanity. III. Concerning that which they say: one in the other, that is, God the Word dwelling in man.
IV. Concerning that which is written: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." V. That they accept with a perverse sense of understanding what is written: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you." VI. That they do not believe that He who was crucified by the Jews is Life. VII. That they confess that only man, not God, was crucified in the flesh. VIII. Concerning that which is written: "The Lord of glory was crucified." IX. Concerning that which they say: that one ought to confess that A Christ suffered in the flesh, but not that God suffered in the flesh. And concerning that which is written: "God has made Him both Lord and Christ." X. Concerning the testimonies by which they endeavor to demonstrate that He who suffered for our salvation is a mere man. XI. That they by no means confess the miracles and the sufferings to be of one and the same. And concerning that which is written to the Hebrews: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation by his sufferings." XII. Concerning that which is craftily said by them: The flesh of God suffered, but God did not suffer in the flesh. XIII. How they assert that God has made the sufferings of His own flesh His own. B XIV. That they assert that God suffered in the flesh, but by no means confess that God the Word suffered in the flesh. XV. That they deny that He who was seen and touched and suffered in the flesh is God, because of that which is written: "No man has seen God at any time." XVI. That they impiously assert that the Trinity dwells in Christ, and because of that which is written: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." XVII. That they perversely assert that God the Son, but not God the Father, dwells in Christ, through that which is written: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." XVIII. That they assert that Christ, not the flesh of Christ, was created and raised up by the holy C Trinity; which, while they endeavor to teach it (according to the Arians), they are caught believing that Christ is a creature. XIX. Concerning that which they say: to divide the *Homousion* is to say that Christ is one from the Trinity. XX. Concerning that which they allege: that whatever is said to be "from something else" shows itself to be different from that other; and therefore, that Christ ought not to be confessed as one from the Trinity, but one in the Trinity; and how this same thing is mentioned by the heretics themselves in their perversity. XXI. That while they confess Christ is indeed one person from the Trinity, they foolishly deny that Christ is one from the Trinity. And that they impiously contrive that Christ is not from two natures, but from two persons, one person because of the one name of "Son," and his dignity and authority. D XXII. Concerning that which they assert: that we ought to affirm nothing which is not contained in the canonical Scriptures; and concerning that which they say deceitfully, that there is no Trinity without Christ; and that against almost all their wiles is opposed that which is written: "Behold Adam is become as one of us." XXIII. Concerning that which some of them seem to say deceitfully, that God was born of a woman; yet they by no means assert that Christ is one from the Trinity, and concerning that which they say: "It is sufficient for us to confess this, we wish to use our own terms." XXIV. That it is craftily said by them: If you judge this to be the same, which is said by you and by us, why do you regard us as heretics because we do not wish to use your terms, lest we provide an occasion to other heretics? XXV. Concerning that which they say: that it is not necessary to assert anything further than what is contained in the words of the synod, and that they judge those to be heretics who—responding as they do—say indeed that there are two natures in other words; but we do not wish to use your terms, lest we seem to give an occasion to other heretics.
INTERLOCUTORS. NESTORIAN, CATHOLIC.
CHAPTER ONE
NESTORIAN. I remember that you answered in the previous discourse, when it was asked whether you believed Christ to be in two natures, that you believed it to be in two, but united by a natural agreement. Because this suddenly burst forth into an inquiry of another question, it was deferred there to ask something about it. Now, however, because (insofar as it can be rightly understood) it is believed to be alien and too impious—if it please you—let it be inquired into first.
CATHOLIC. Although we were discussing many things in the previous discourse, we were able to make no progress with you, because your mind, desiring not to be healed but to win, and being averse to the things that are said, [applies itself] to nothingness.
A Since it is aimed at nothing else but finding [fault] in order to discourse according to its own parts, we ought not to inquire further with you on the chief matter. But lest we seem to do this out of a lack of reason rather than through modesty, we are compelled, contrary to our intention, to answer your objections. Therefore, you said (if I am not mistaken) that to believe that God the Word was naturally united to human nature is impious and foreign to Catholic dogmas, and for that reason it befits you to explain more clearly why you thought this.
N. Whatever happens naturally is understood to happen not by will but by necessity, and therefore if God the Word was naturally united to His own flesh, He is to be believed to have done this not out of mercy, but by natural impulse.
C. Do you therefore define all things that are called natural as occurring by necessity, not by will?
N. This is what I think; finally, we suffer hunger, thirst, sleep not by will, but as natural things; but what does not happen by will is undoubtedly conducted by the necessity of nature. These things which you say are proper to a composite and passible nature; but for an impassible and incomposite nature, it is not one thing to do something naturally and another to do it voluntarily, but it is entirely one and the same. Because there, nature is not one thing and will another, but nature is will, and will is nature. Therefore, God the Word, to whom no will is an accident, nor is His nature passible, when He is said to have been naturally united to the flesh, is believed to have done this not by necessity, but by will. Otherwise, I ask whether you believe God to be [God] naturally or voluntarily? For if you say voluntarily, it follows that He is not naturally God. But if you persist in asserting that He is naturally [God], then according to you, God is such by necessity, not by will, which is a great madness to believe of God. And therefore it is not impious, nor foreign to Catholic dogmas, to believe that God the Word was naturally united to His own flesh, in order to exclude those who do not believe that an inviolable nature was naturally united to a passible nature, but confess that God was united to the person—I know not whose—already formed in the womb of a man, according to grace, or according to enlightenment, or certainly according to affection.
CAP. II.
N. You seem to me to introduce a certain composition and confusion of natures, by saying that the natures were naturally united.
C. Although we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, from divinity and humanity, is composite—or rather united—we nevertheless utterly shun the confusion of natures, because we believe that both natures remain perfect.
N. Composition is understood to be contrary to unity, because it either effects confusion or is not lacking in division. Furthermore, all buildings that consist of composition are without doubt dissolved, while those things which are compounded by perfumers from diverse natures of things are confused in themselves, nor does any thing in them retain its propriety. How, therefore, do you— B C. Do you assert that every composite thing is passible or impassible?
N. Entirely passible.
C. What do you think of the non-composite?
N. It certainly subsists in impassibility.
C. Do you assert that Christ is passible or impassible?
N. After the incarnation, entirely passible.
C. Why then do you shun confessing that Christ, the Son of the living God, is composite, whom you undoubtedly say is passible?
N. I confess that Christ is composite according to humanity, because I believe that He is also passible according to humanity, but incomposite according to divinity, because He is also impassible.
C. How, therefore, do you confess that the one and the same [Christ] is composite after the incarnation from divinity and humanity, whom it is agreed was incomposite before the incarnation?
N. Not indeed, but I say that the assumed man is composite, but He by whom he was assumed is incomposite.
C. You are detected as undoubtedly believing in two sons: one composite, the other incomposite.
N. Do you then deny that the nature of divinity is simple and incomposite?
C. I do not deny this in any way.
N. Do you confess that man is composite or incomposite?
C. Composite, absolutely.
N. How, therefore, do you deny that Christ is composite and incomposite, whom you undoubtedly confess to be God and man?
C. I indeed confess the Son of God to be God and man: but I strongly shun those who do not confess the same Christ, the Son of God, to be incomposite before the incarnation and composite after the incarnation.
N. You are recognized as preaching a certain contraction of the divine nature, by saying that He is both incomposite before the incarnation and composite after the incarnation. But how can a nature which is uncircumscribed and diffused everywhere be united by way of composition to a nature which is circumscribed and established in a small place, unless perhaps, as I said, you impiously confess that either a contraction of the divinity or an extension of the flesh occurred?
C. I think that you believe the divine essence to be corporeal, which you estimate to be now contracted to the flesh, now extended with the flesh. C N. Far be this from a Christian mind.
C. What, therefore, do you feel the divine nature to be?
N. Undoubtedly a great power, and being whole everywhere.
C. Do you say that it exists whole everywhere according to the whole?
N. It is certainly not everywhere according to the whole, but
it is present in each case particularly, because each individual receives from its fullness. C. How then is it whole everywhere, if it is not whole in each rational animal? But particularly? And how particularly, if it is not a body, but a spirit? N. It is indeed whole unto itself and exists everywhere according to the whole, but as far as the creature is concerned, it does not cause the rational animal to perceive that it is near or present to it, except in so far as it itself has indicated. C. I suppose you believe that God the Word is in nothing unlike the Father. N. It is the dogma of the Arians and Eunomians, not of the Catholics, to believe the Son unlike the Father in any part. C. For is it perfect, as it is equal to the Father, when you say it is united to its own flesh, or is it united according to something and not united according to something else? N. Paul taught, *In whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden* (Coloss. ii, 3). C. Is it therefore whole and according to the whole, as the perfect divinity of God the Word equal to the Father is united to the flesh? N. No Christian doubts this. B C. Why then do you assert a contraction of the divinity or an extension of the flesh, since it cannot, as you say, for an uncircumscribed nature diffused everywhere to be united according to composition to a circumscribed nature established in a small place? N. I assert neither a contraction nor an extension of the human nature, because this is proper to bodies, but not to spirit and power, which cannot be united to flesh according to composition, especially since the divinity of the Word is uncircumscribed, as I have said, and contains all things. C C. Do you say that the human [Christ] is composite or incomposite? N. Composite. C. Out of what things? N. Out of soul, certainly, and flesh. C. Do you assert that the soul is consubstantial with the flesh, or of a different nature? N. Of a totally different nature. C. Is it because it is not flesh, and is a body, although all flesh is a body, yet not every body is flesh? N. I do not call the soul a body in any way. C. What then do you call it? N. A spirit, without doubt, but not uncircumscribed. C. Do you confess that it is spread throughout individual members [of the body], or [that] a greater part [is] in a larger member, and a smaller in a smaller? N. I believe it is whole in each member of its body, because, although it may be circumscribed, I do not believe that it consists of parts in any way, because once the members of the body are truncated, it remains intact. C. If therefore the soul, which is not a body but a spirit, united to the flesh according to composition, suffers no contraction in a smaller member and no extension in a larger one, but without its own confusion, is believed to be whole in a larger and whole in a smaller [member]: by what logic is the divinity of God the Word, united to its own flesh according to composition, to be believed to have undergone contraction or extension or confusion? For by the example of the union of the soul to the flesh, which you did not deny comes about according to composition, all the doctors of the Church and illustrious men are shown to teach that the union of God the Word to his own flesh came about. N. There is no doubt that every composite [thing] consists of parts, and a part is less than the whole; therefore God the Word is a part of Christ, whom you assert to be composed of divinity and humanity; and if God the Word is a part of Christ, then according to you God the Word is less than Christ, of whom he is a part; but if God is a part of Christ, how [is he] God, if he is imperfect? C. God the Word is not imperfect, because he did not need to be perfected by the assumption of flesh, but [rather] in order that the flesh might be perfected, changed for the better, by uniting itself to the flesh; he who was before is made composite, being without doubt supremely simple and incomposite, and perfect in all things, as being God. For it is written of him that he needs not our goods. (Ps. xv, 2). For he conferred nothing upon it, nor did he subtract from it, by the fact that human nature was assumed for our salvation, which he rather ineffably glorified by his own union. Nor is God the Word less than Christ, because he himself is Christ; nor can he be less than himself, and with the flesh assumed, the same God remained without doubt perfect. Otherwise, if after the incarnation Christ is denied to be composite, he remained what he was before, simple and incomposite. And because a thing that is supremely simple and incomposite receives no passion at all in itself, as you yourself professed above, then according to you Christ did not suffer for human salvation. If, however, remaining simple and incomposite he suffered, then the simple and incomposite nature is not impassible. But if the simple and incomposite nature is not impassible, then the divinity of Christ is passible. But if the divinity of Christ remains impassible, as it is indeed true, it remains that a simple and incomposite nature is not passible. Because, although Christ preserves the simplicity and impassibility of his divinity even after the union and composition, nevertheless on account of the [nature] united to himself
[he] must be believed to have been composed in relation to the flesh itself. Therefore, while you are unwilling to confess that Christ is composite after the incarnation, you are convicted of believing either that his divine nature is composite and passible, or certainly [you are admitting] that Christ, whom you assert to be even after the incarnation simple and incomposite as he was before, in no way suffered for human salvation.
N. I do not believe the divine nature is passible, which I call most simple and incomposite, and I confess that Christ suffered for human salvation, because I acknowledge him to be not only God, but also man. I ask, however, whether you assert that this composition occurred in the womb of the Virgin, or after she brought forth her first-born son?
C. In the womb, absolutely. For how could I believe him to be God by nature, whom I confess to be united to flesh according to composition, if they asserted the composition of natures after birth? For this is considered to be neither composition nor union, but the indwelling of one in another.
CAP. III.
N. You have certainly proven what you seemed hitherto to hide with many circumlocutions of words, that composition in no way preserves the property of natures.
C. In what way have I shown that composition does not preserve the property of natures?
N. In that you judge it to be contrary to indwelling.
C. Just as union does not confound natures, so neither does composition, for neither are the natures of soul and flesh, which have been united according to composition, confounded in themselves. But the indwelling of one in the other is entirely of two. But God and man is not one in another; rather, he is the same God, the same man.
N. Although according to the union he is one and the same God-man, yet according to the natures, the other is God, the other is man. For if God himself is man, even according to the natures, why does he not say: "Solve me," but, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up"?
CAP. IV.
C. I wonder that you remember the evangelical utterances which you believe agree with your assertions, but pass over those which you recognize as being contrary to your positions, as if you had never heard them. But indeed, did not he who said: "Destroy this temple," also say, after the ointment was poured by the woman upon his head, as is reported: "Let her alone, she has done a good work upon me; for in pouring this ointment upon my body, she has done it for my burying"? Do you see that no one else was buried except him whose temple it is?
N. If he who was buried is he whose temple it is, it remains that the temple was neither destroyed nor buried.
C. Since under the name of temple you seem to me to suggest one who was unburied and another who was buried, if you please, [let it be] explained more clearly what you understand by the temple.
N. My explanation does not require what is clearly expressed by the Evangelist. Finally, after that statement which he made: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," he immediately added: "But he was speaking of the temple of his body."
C. Do you say this body is God’s or man’s?
N. Without doubt, of the assumed man.
C. If this body is of the assumed man, is this body therefore the temple of the assumed man?
N. It is not the temple of the assumed man, but of him who dwells in it invisibly.
C. And who is the invisible one dwelling in the temple?
N. God, without a doubt.
C. Therefore it is the body, not of the assumed man as you assert, but of God, whose temple it also is.
N. If it were a lifeless body in which the invisible God dwelt, it would indeed be the body of God, not of the assumed man. But because the body is animated, in which God dwells, it is the body not of God, but of the assumed man.
C. Therefore not the body, but the man is the temple of God, because you assert that God dwells invisibly in the animated body (which is without doubt man).
N. Does this not seem so to you?
C. God forbid! For this is altogether contrary to the exposition of the Evangelist, who said: "But he was not speaking of the temple of a man, but of the temple of his body."
N. As it seems to me, do you not think Christ had a soul?
C. Far be that calumny entirely from me.
N. How then do you reject as contrary [to your view] that God is said by us to dwell in man, if you confess that Christ’s body has a soul?
C. Because you confess the body to be not of an assumed man, as you assert, but of God, whose soul also I believe it to be, and therefore I do not preach God in a man, but God in a body. Otherwise it is nothing else to say "God in a man" than "a man of God," and thus Christ is understood no longer as God become man, but as a man of God, which can be said of all who faithfully serve God.
CAP. V.
N. If the body is God’s, and not of an assumed man, why is it not said: "Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of God; but the flesh of the Son of man, you shall not have life in you"?
C. Although the flesh is of the Son of man, yet the very flesh of the Son of man is the flesh of God. For if it is not the flesh of God, how can it provide eternal life to those who believe?
N. Because this was granted to it by God who is united to it.
C. If the flesh is united to God, how is it not the flesh of God?
N. Because against the manifest voice of the Gospel...
A regarding the one hastening to his passion, he says to his disciples: Take and eat of this all of you; for this is my body, which shall be broken for you for the remission of sins?
CAP. VI.
C. He is undoubtedly the one who said: I am the way, the truth, and the life. N. Therefore, Life is grasped by the hands of the impious, Life is crucified, finally Life dies, and if Life is dead, who is to be believed to provide life to the dead? C. If he who is life is not crucified, and dead, they ought by no means to hope for life from one who is dead. But because he who is life has been crucified and dead, do not listen to me, but hear the blessed Peter shouting to the Jews: You desired, he says, a true murderer to be granted to you, but you killed the author of life. N. Although God is believed to be the author of his own life, yet because we can also call men authors of life, those who hand down the discipline of living well, teach more clearly, if you are able, how life is crucified or dead. C. Although it is not rightly believed that men who hand down the discipline of living well are the authors of life, but God alone, yet even if I have shown from the Scriptures that he who is life is dead and crucified, turning yourself again to other things, while you do not wish to believe the truth, you do not cease to stir up superfluous questions.
CAP. VII.
N. If I did not wish to believe the truth, I would never bring forth those things which move me to be discussed in public. But you, while you are not able to answer the objections, insult us as if we were asking superfluous questions. C. But this is completely that which not I, but he himself about whom it is disputed, has answered for me to your objections, and who speaks noting you as his adversary, in Deuteronomy to the people of Israel. And you shall see, he says, your life hanging upon the tree, and you shall not believe in it. N. And how can life by itself hang upon a tree? Was God therefore crucified by the Jews? C. Do not believe me, but the prophet saying: If man pricks God, because you prick me, O whole nation. B N. Is it then the case that James is the brother of God, because he is called the brother of the Lord? C. There is not another God, another Lord, but the Lord himself is God, as the Prophet says: Know that the Lord himself is God. And therefore God of glory is rightly believed by the Jews to have been crucified, nor is it contrary to the truth according to this voice of the Prophet to call James, the brother of the Lord, the brother of God according to the flesh. N. This doctrine of yours is something new and intolerable, which preaches that God is passible, when concerning him who was crucified by the Jews, the apostle Peter in the Acts of the Apostles clearly testifies, saying: Let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this one he stands before you whole. And again: Most certainly, he says, let all the house of Israel know that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. Since therefore the apostle testifies that he whom the Jews crucified was made Lord and Christ by God, it is not hidden who is to be understood as the Lord of glory, nor certainly who is to be believed to have been crucified by the Jews; for I do not believe you to have fallen into such a precipice of error that you believe the Son of God, God, to have been made Lord by God. Whence we are taught by this sentence of the apostle and that voice of the prophet brought forward by you, that the name of Lord does not always signify God, but sometimes only God, sometimes only man, sometimes however God and man: therefore we are not forced to understand God crucified, for the reason that the Lord of glory is said by the apostle to have been crucified, nor because James is called the brother of the Lord, do we believe him to be the brother of God. C N. It is entirely false, this is never read in ecclesiastical books, although it is written in the prophet Malachi: If man supplants God, because you supplant me, O whole nation. C. There is no doubt that it is contained in the old edition, as you say, but in the new, that which has been posited by us. But if the authority of the new edition seems to be such as should be despised by you, hear the Apostle crying out: They crucified the Lord of glory.
CHAPTER VIII.
N. If the Lord of glory was crucified, is he to be believed as God D
CAP. IX.
C. That Jesus of Nazareth is God, I think I have shown sufficiently both by reason and also by testimonies in the previous discourse, but to the faithless, it is all nothing. But concerning that which you judge to be a great error, to believe that a God-made-Lord was made by God, because it was said by Peter concerning the crucified Jesus, that God made him Lord and Christ, I ask whether, when he was Jesus, and yet was not Lord, was he made Lord by God? Or when he was already Lord, was he made Lord by God? N. How, if he were Lord, would he be made Lord by God, since no one becomes what he already is? But because he was not Lord, he is therefore said to have been made Lord by God. C. Was there then a time when Jesus was not Lord? N. He was not, before he became Lord. C. How then did you say: If he were Lord, he would not be made Lord by God, but because he was not Lord, therefore by God he was made Lord? N. Because, before he was born, he was not one who would become Lord, nor after he was born was he made
Lord by God, but in the very union of the Son of God in the womb, he was made Lord.
C. Is there, then, one Son of God, and another Jesus who is made Lord by the union of the Son of God?
N. It is the same one, as I have already said above, by dignity and authority, but not according to natures.
C. According to natures, therefore, there are two, but in dignity and power there is one Son, and is he who took the form of a servant from these to be believed?
N. There are not two sons, as you dream, but one is the Son of God, whom we nonetheless believe in two united natures, who also, when he was in the form of God, took the form of a servant.
C. Did the Son of God, then, when he was Lord God, take the form of a servant, or do you confess that to believe this is an error? B
N. He who does not believe this is altogether a pagan.
C. If, then, it is not an error, to believe that the Son of God, being God and Lord, as equal to God the Father, in the form of a servant was made a servant—because he himself also testifies this of himself, saying to the Father: "I am your servant, and the son of your handmaid"—it is not at all an error to believe that the Son of God, God, according to that which he was made a servant, was made Lord by God the Father; and for that reason not, as you say, at one time only God, at another time only man, but at another time truly God and man; but God is always to be understood as Lord, and Lord is always to be understood as God, because no other is preached as having been made Lord by God, except him who, taking the form of a servant, was made a servant, while being before the ages the glorious Lord, whom Paul preaches as having been crucified by the Jews. Hence it is that he exclaims to the Father: "Father, glorify your Son with the glory which he had with you before the world was." Surely that voice is not of him who said: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart"? For the Son of God, God, would never have been made Lord by God the Father, unless, when he was Lord C as God, by taking the form of a servant he had been made a servant. Nor would he pray to be glorified by the Father, if he had not, when he was with the Father before the world was, been glorious, and had not humbled himself of his own accord for our salvation. Jesus, the Son of God, God, becomes Lord and is glorified by the Father, not with that glory which he did not have, but with that which he had with the Father before the world was. Wherefore there is no doubt at all that Jesus is God by nature: whom, just as Peter the Apostle preaches him to have been made Lord by God, so also he preaches him to have been glorified by God, saying: "The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed denied before the face of Pilate, when he had judged that he should be released."
N. Unless you believe all these things on account of the union of God with man that has been effected, you are convicted of preaching a divinity that is, without doubt, passible. D
C. I do not in any way preach a passible divinity, but I do confess that God suffered in the flesh, because I acknowledge Jesus Christ as the true God.
N. I in no way profess that God suffered in the flesh, which is not at all read in the Holy Scriptures, but I confess that Christ suffered in the flesh, following the Apostle Peter.
C. I indeed confess both, that God suffered in the flesh and that Christ suffered in the flesh, because Christ is God over all. But you avoid saying that God suffered in the flesh because you do not believe that Christ is God. But if you do not deny that Christ is God, then to say that Christ suffered in the flesh is altogether the same as to say that God suffered in the flesh, because Christ who suffered is without doubt God.
N. If to say that God suffered in the flesh is the same as to say that Christ suffered in the flesh: then, according to you, not only is the Son Christ, but the Father is also Christ, because he too is without doubt God.
C. The Father is not Christ, even though he is God, because God is not the same as Christ. But the Son is Christ for this reason, that he is not the same, but because he himself is God the Christ. For this reason Catholics confess both, that God suffered in the flesh and that Christ suffered in the flesh.
CHAP. X
N. If Christ is God, who is it that says to the Jews: "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?"
C. It is undoubtedly he of whom it is written: "Because the Jews sought to kill him, not only because he broke the Sabbath, but because he said his Father was God, making himself equal to God." Is there left for us still any scruple of ambiguity by which Jesus Christ is not believed to be God by nature? For if he were God by grace and not by nature, he would never make himself equal to God.
N. Is Paul therefore deceived, saying: "By man came death, and by man the resurrection of the dead"?
C. And how can there be a resurrection of the dead through a man, unless the man himself is the resurrection, who cries out in the Gospel: "I am the resurrection and the life"? And because the resurrection and life of all is none other than God, he is without doubt the same man through whom the Apostle preaches the resurrection to be.
N. The same Apostle is therefore found to be entirely ignorant of this sacrament, saying: "The mediator of God and man, the man Jesus Christ."
C. Just as the Apostle is not ignorant of this sacrament, so neither is he contrary to himself, saying: "According to the coming of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins." When, therefore, the man Jesus Christ is the great mediator of God and men, who gave himself for our sins, it is not at all a contradiction, but one and the same God suffering in the flesh.
A And [it is necessary] to confess Christ as having suffered in the flesh in every way. Hence, the Church of God also recognizes the miracles and sufferings of one and the same [Christ]. Therefore, if anyone does not confess both, he must either be avoided as a Jew or shunned as a Manichaean.
CHAPTER XI.
N. By a certain cunning and very subtle art of deception you have until now had an opening, but now you can have no refuge. As you preach the miracles and sufferings of one and the same Son of God, whereas the Apostle clearly teaches to the Hebrews that the Lord Jesus Christ was perfected by God the Word through sufferings, saying: "It was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, who had brought many sons into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings." Do you discern that the author of their salvation, Jesus Christ, who was perfected through sufferings, is without a doubt God the Word, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, who brought many sons into glory? How, then, are the miracles and sufferings of one and the same person to be believed, when one is perfected by the other through sufferings? B and upholding all things by the word of His power, having made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high. He became as much better than the angels as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. Behold the Author of salvation, who had brought many sons into glory, making purification for sins; which, at any rate, cannot be done without the shedding of blood. As the same Apostle teaches in another place: "The radiance of [His] glory and the exact imprint of the substance of God the Father, upholding all things by the word of His power. He Himself even becomes better than the angels, and sits at the right hand of Majesty, through whom the ages are proclaimed, He who was made a little lower than the angels, by the grace of God the Father, as it is said: He tasted death for everyone; concerning whom it is said: For whom and through whom are all things, who had brought many sons into glory." C Therefore, God the Word, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, is none other than the author of salvation, Jesus, who, making purification for sins, brought many sons into glory, having been perfected by the Father through sufferings, just as the same Apostle says of Him: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all."
N. Your intention accomplishes nothing at all, except to teach, as much as in you lies, that God the impassible and immortal suffered and died.
CHAPTER XII.
C. Since you deny that He who was crucified for human salvation is God, I ask, whom do you assert was incarnated?
N. The Word, without a doubt, as the evangelist testifies, saying: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."
C. Did God the Word who was incarnated Himself also suffer, or was one incarnated and yet another suffered?
N. God is not incarnated, but the flesh of God is.
C. You have given me a great refuge, and a great door has been opened to me, through which I have entered, guided by Him who said: "I am the door," D not with the cunning arts of deception as you claim, but rather by the most true proofs, I will refute your ignorance and perfidy. For while you do not understand the Apostle's meaning, you are convicted of preaching one Son of God as passible and another as impassible. For, as you ignorantly assert, God the Word does not perfect the author of our salvation through sufferings, but God the Father perfects the author of His sons through sufferings—the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for whom are all things and through whom are all things. For who here is permitted to understand "the author of the salvation of sons perfected through sufferings" as someone other than Him who had brought many sons into glory, for whom are all things and through whom are all things? For when he had said above: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone," he immediately added, saying: "For it was fitting"—that is, for God the Father—"that He for whom are all things and through whom are all things, should perfect through sufferings the author of the salvation of those sons" (whom He had brought into glory, who even when He was equal to God, was made a little lower than the angels, [and] by the grace of God the Father tasted death for everyone). But we are taught this more clearly and with greater clarity at the beginning of the same Epistle: "God," he says, "who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages; who, being the radiance of [His] glory and the exact imprint of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power..."
C. You have given us a great hope regarding yourself. For you, who until now asserted that it was not the flesh of God, but of an assumed man, now have confessed it to be God's; but because it is not very clear what was said, "God did not suffer, but the flesh of God [did]," if you please, explain this more clearly. For it seems most absurd to say: if the flesh of God suffered, how is it that God did not suffer in the flesh? And if God did not suffer in the flesh, how is the flesh of God said to have suffered? Unless perhaps the Jews are to be believed to have crucified flesh void of soul and abandoned by God. Since that is most foolish—to believe that flesh without a soul was crucified by the Jews—it remains that the ensouled flesh of God is believed to have been crucified by the Jews, which is, without a doubt, a man. If your assertion—that is, to say that not God in the flesh, but the flesh of God suffered—is admitted into belief, what else is believed except that the man of God suffered? Which it is also lawful to say of Peter and Paul, because
A whose vestment or flesh it is, of him without doubt the injury and the passion are believed to be—the one whose flesh or vestment it is.
CHAPTER XIII.
N. God indeed has not suffered, because to preach that God is passible is sacrilege, but God made the passions of His body His own.
C. "Own" or "proper" is understood in many ways. For the Church is also called His body, and God makes the passions of that same Church His own, on behalf of which, even when placed in heaven, He cries out: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And each one of the faithful is a member of Him, just as the same Apostle teaches, saying: "You are the body of Christ, and members member by member"; but also that bread which the whole Church partakes of in memory of the Lord's passion is His body. Therefore, since you assert that God made the passions of His body His own, it is fitting that you make it clear by examples.
N. I will do so as much as I can, provided that I might divert you from this intention, so that you might cease to assert further that God the Word suffered in the flesh, although the flesh of God has suffered. This is not called the body of God in the way the Church is, nor in the way that bread is which the whole Church partakes of in memory of the passion of Christ; but it is called the body of God as the property of a man, by which he is clothed as if by a vestment, which when it is torn by someone, the injury is referred to Him who is clothed in it. According to this reasoning, therefore, God makes the passions of His body His own. B
C. Does God then make the passions of His flesh His own according to relation, not according to true and intimate property? And how is it preached by you that God made the passions of His flesh His own, you who make the passions of His flesh His own not according to property, but according to relation? But what property can a vestment have towards him who is clothed in it, when nothing pertains to his substance? For neither, when we define what a man is, do we also include his vestment, which certainly is not of the same substance. According to you, therefore, God makes the passions of His Church His own rather than those of His body. For that is called the body of God because God communicated in flesh and blood, and was made the head of the Church. But the Church, through faith, is again rendered a participant in Him, receiving the Holy Spirit. But by you, the body of God is believed to be like a vestment, which seems to pertain nothing to the nature of His divinity or His flesh. But Isaiah preaches nothing else as the vestment of God except the flesh of God, saying: "Who is this who comes from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah?" But if you understand nothing else by the vestment of God except the flesh of God, it remains that whether you refer the tearing of the vestment or the passions of the flesh to Him, C
CAP. XIV.
N. And where have you read in the Holy Scriptures that the Church is the body of God the Word, and not rather [the body] of Christ?
C. By this assertion of yours, you make one Christ, and another God the Word; but if there is not another Christ and another God the Word, but God the Word Himself is Christ, just as the Church is called the body of Christ, so it is called the body of God the Word. But if the body of Christ is not the body of God the Word, how did you say above that the flesh of God suffered?
N. I said the flesh of God suffered, but not [that] of God the Word, because Christ is God, in honor and dignity, whose flesh I said suffered, because of the God the Word inhabiting Him. Hence finally I denied that God suffered, and yet I confessed that the flesh of God suffered.
C. God is not then the true Christ, but because of the God the Word inhabiting Him, He is called God in honor and dignity, or rather, according to you, by name only. And how is this not contrary to that sentiment of the Apostle John, where he says: "We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we might know the true God, and that we might be in His true Son, Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life"?
N. If you do not say that Christ is God because of the honor and dignity of the indwelling God the Word, you surely make God to have been seen and touched by men. D
CAP. XV.
C. If God was not seen and touched by men, how does the same John say: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, and have contemplated, and our hands have touched of the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and we testify, and announce to you eternal life, which was with the Father, and appeared to us"? Run through the details, and see God seen and touched by men. Finally, the Word of life, which was from the beginning with the Father, whom they heard, saw, and contemplated with their eyes by the Law and the prophets, the great Apostle testifies was touched by his own hands. And lest anyone should attempt to assert that the Word touched and seen was anything other than that which is God with God, he immediately follows: "And the life, he says, was manifested, and we have seen, and we testify, and we announce to you eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared to us."
N. Does the Lord Himself lie, then, saying: "No one has ever seen God"? And the Apostle speaking of God: "Whom no man, he says, has seen, nor can he be seen." And God says to Moses: "No one is able to see my face and live."
C. If it is not God who was seen, how does He Himself say: "Behold, I who was speaking, am here"; and the prophet: "God shall come manifestly: our God, and He shall not be silent"?
A N. Is it to be believed, then, that divine Scripture speaks against itself?
C. Divine Scripture is not contrary to itself for those who understand it piously, but it seems contrary to those who, deceived by a heretical spirit, cannot taste what is true. For since no one can see with bodily eyes the nature of the Godhead, which is certainly not a body but a spirit, it was said: "No man hath seen God at any time"; and: "No man seeth my face, and liveth." Again, because God was to be seen by men in assumed flesh, that prefiguration made to Jacob teaches this; furthermore, that blessed patriarch struggles in a vision with a man, and blessed by Him, he says: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved." Hence also Thomas, after the Lord's resurrection, palpating and touching the pierced side of the Lord, exclaims: "My Lord and my God." B N. Although unwilling, you have greatly benefited our side. For, since the divine nature is not a body, but a spirit, as you yourself have also professed, it is not ambiguous what nature was seen or confessed; for the disciples being in doubt, the same Lord says: "Handle, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Wherefore the Lord Jesus Christ, who was pierced, was seen and handled; whom, when the apostle had recognized after the resurrection, he exclaims and says: "My Lord and my God!" From this it clearly appears that Jesus Christ, whom Thomas saw and touched resurrected from the dead, is not God except for the God inhabiting Him, whom no man surely sees, and lives.
C. By no means, because of the inhabitant, as you assert, does he call Him whom Thomas saw and touched God; because it is far from the apostolic faith to believe in two sons; but he testifies that He Himself, whose wounds he touched, is his Lord and God; for the God of the apostles is God not by dignity, but by nature. Finally, Jeremiah the prophet most clearly testifies of Him who was seen and touched, that He is God by nature: "This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted in comparison of him; who hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath given it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterward he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." Wherefore the God-man Jesus Christ, to whom none other is accounted, was seen and conversed. C N. If no other God is accounted in comparison to Him who was pierced and crucified by the Jews, who is the God who is to be accounted in comparison to the crucified one?
C. In no way do you depart from your own intention, by which you believe Christ to be nothing other than one of those of whom God says: "I will dwell in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
N. But it was said of no one among them what the Apostle testifies concerning Christ, saying: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
C. By what do you understand the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ?
N. The whole Trinity, without a doubt. D
CHAPTER XVI
C. Is Christ, then, now the fourth, in whom the whole Trinity dwells?
N. Do we then make Paul a liar, who asserts this?
C. Paul is not a liar, because he does not say that the Trinity dwells in Christ, since he does not know Christ to be extraneous to the Trinity.
N. If the Trinity does not dwell in Christ, how does all the fulness of the Godhead dwell in Christ? For either the fulness of the Godhead does not dwell in Christ, if the Trinity does not dwell in Christ: or if the fulness of the Godhead dwells, without a doubt the Trinity dwells in Christ.
C. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, and the Trinity does not dwell in Christ, lest it be not a Trinity, but a Quaternity. For since, with no one doubting, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Trinity, and on that account Paul does not teach that the Trinity dwells in Christ, saying: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"; but he teaches that the Father dwells in Christ.
N. If all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ is to be understood as the Father alone, it is not left to the Son and Holy Spirit, as God.
C. Do you assert the Father to be full and perfect God, or do you testify that the Son and Holy Spirit are the perfection and fulness of Him?
N. Full and perfect, without a doubt.
C. Therefore, full and perfect God the Father does not leave it so that He is God, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. Truly, if it is impious to believe this, it remains that it is not contrary, but rather most consonant with the truth, to understand the Father as the fulness of the Godhead. For just as He Himself is His own fulness, similarly the Son also is fulness, and the Holy Spirit is fulness, and all together, that is, the whole Trinity, is not three, but one fulness of the Godhead; because both the Father is perfect, and the Son is perfect, and the Holy Spirit is perfect, and all together, not three perfections, but one perfection. For if the Son, as John testifies concerning Him, is called fulness (He says: "And of his fulness have all we received"), how is the Father to be denied as being fulness?
N. Is the Godhead of the Trinity one, and the Trinity one God, or three gods and three godheads?
C. Without a doubt, the Godhead of the Trinity is one, and the Trinity is one God.
N. If therefore there is one Godhead of the Trinity, and one God Trinity, how does the Trinity not dwell in Christ, just as the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ, which is one and alone?
A C. There is no doubt among us that Christ subsists in two united natures, one of the Godhead and the other of the humanity. And since the Godhead of the whole Trinity is one and alone, it follows, according to you, that Christ is the Trinity and the humanity, who subsists from the Godhead of the whole Trinity, which is one and alone, and from the humanity. Furthermore, if Christ is the Trinity and the humanity, then the Trinity does not dwell in Christ, but the Trinity itself is Christ.
CHAPTER XVII
N. Christ is not the Trinity and the humanity; and yet Christ is from a perfect Godhead and a perfect humanity, and the Trinity dwells in Christ, and Christ is not a fourth, as you assume. For the Father, beyond any doubt, dwells in the Son, and the Son in the Father, from whom the Holy Spirit is not separated. Moreover, the Son is God, in whom the Father dwells; He is so in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, that on account of the Son joined to Him, He Himself is both the Son and Christ; and in this way the Trinity dwells in Christ, and Christ is not a fourth.
C. This is too great—not an argument, but an absurdity. For since you have maintained that the Trinity dwells in Christ, for the reason that it is said: *For in Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily*, are you now saying that not the whole Trinity, but only God the Son is in Christ, for the reason that it is written: *God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself*? Yet in this Son, because the Father dwells in Him, and He in the Father, from whom the Holy Spirit is not separated, you again assert, according to this reasoning, that the whole Trinity dwells in Christ; but you say that it is not a quaternity, even though the Trinity dwells in Christ, because God the Word is in Christ in such a way that, on account of the Son joined to Him, the Son is one, and Christ is one. But whether you say the Trinity or God the Word is in Christ, you are convicted of proclaiming entirely a quaternity, not a Trinity.
N. In what way, if I said that God the Word is in Christ, am I convicted of proclaiming a quaternity, not a Trinity?
C. Because the Trinity is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as we have already said above; if they dwell in Christ, Christ would undoubtedly be understood as a fourth, in whom the Trinity dwells. Again: if God the Son is in Christ, then He is no longer Christ Himself; and if He is not Christ Himself, there are two altogether, God the Son and the Christ in whom He dwells: although you argue craftily, to deceive simple people, that they are one. For the Apostle taught above that God the Father, not God the Son, is in Christ, reconciling the world B to Himself; finally he says: *If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away. Behold, all things are made new*. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ. But if it still seems doubtful which God he says is reconciling the world to Himself through Christ, whether the Father or the Son, let us be taught by the Lord Himself, who says: *The Father, dwelling in me, He doeth His works*.
N. Is the power and operation of the Trinity one and equal, or diverse?
C. Altogether one.
N. Are all things therefore that are created, created by the whole Trinity, or does this not seem so to you?
C. All things that the Father does, the Son does these same things likewise, nor do the Father and the Son do anything without the Holy Spirit.
CHAPTER XVIII
N. Do you say that every mortal thing is created or uncreated?
C. Altogether created.
N. If therefore everything that dies is a creature, then Christ, having died for our sins, is also a creature. And because there is no creature that the Trinity does not operate upon, then certainly Christ, whom we believe to have died for our sins, was created by the whole Trinity and raised from the dead, because the power and operation of the Trinity is one. But if it is not contrary to the truth to believe that Christ was created and raised—as reasoning has taught—by the whole Trinity, neither will this be contrary to the truth: that the whole Trinity dwells in Christ, whom without doubt He raised from the dead.
C. This assertion is altogether impious and sacrilegious, and to be equated with the blasphemies of the Arians, which proclaims Christ not as God, but as a creature. For the Trinity does not create and raise Christ, who died for our sins, as you have impiously argued: since Christ, having died for our sins, is not a stranger or alien, but is one of the Trinity itself. It is true that the flesh of Christ is created and raised by the whole Trinity—not Christ; and because the flesh is not another's, but is of Christ Himself, Christ creates and raises Himself according to the flesh with the Father and the Holy Spirit; for the Apostle testifies that Christ was raised not by the Trinity, but by the Father, saying: *Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead*. For because he said, *not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ*, he did not proclaim Him only God and not also man, writing to the Galatians, who had been almost deceived by the pseudo-apostles of the Jews; rather, he wisely tempers his speech, so that those hearing that God the dead one was raised by God the Father might not be scandalized, thinking two gods were being proclaimed by the Apostle, nor believe Christ to be a mere man raised from the dead.
CHAPTER XIX
N. Since you argue against my assertion as impious and to be equated with the blasphemies of the Arians, because I said that Christ, who died for our sins, is a creature, since every creature is mortal, whereas that which is uncreated is immortal...
and because you fear to preach a quaternity, you are convicted of dividing the Homousion A exactly like the Arians, and of preaching a quaternity instead of the Trinity.
C. Although you ignorantly define every creature as mortal, where do you convict me of dividing the Homousion, or preaching a quaternity instead of the Trinity?
N. In that you say "one of the Trinity."
C. Teach me, then, I pray, how in saying this I introduce a division into the Trinity, or bring a quaternity into the preaching of the Trinity.
N. All things that are in created things cannot be in uncreated things. The Trinity is uncreated, and, to omit other things, number is also in created things; but in number there is an order of first and second, and in order there can happen to be a gradation of greater and lesser regarding the Trinity, and for the same reason that those things which are in number are not in It, neither is number in It. Therefore, it is not at all consistent with the truth to call Christ "one of the Trinity," because "one" is known to be a term of number: and because all number resides in division, to divide is to make the Homousion, to call one "of the Trinity," which is known to subsist in unity, not in division.
A in number, not only according to the persons, but truly the Trinity will not be numbered according to nature. And because, as you say, every number falls into division, the Homousion is divided more by you—who believe that "one" can be numbered or divided—than by us. But if "one," which is perfect and indivisible, could in some way recede into the division of number, we would not divide the Homousion when we truthfully confess that Christ is one of the Trinity. For not all things that are numbered are also equally divided in reality, although all things that are divided in reality are at the same time also numbered. For we number, when we speak of two efficacies of the sun—namely, brightness and heat—and yet we do not divide them, because we perceive them only by cognition. Similarly, we also B number when we speak of Christ our Lord in two united natures, but we do not for that reason divide those same natures in reality, which we distinguish only by cognition. But we distinguish and number the Trinity, as has already been said above, according to the persons, which we do not distinguish or number according to nature, which is one and alone; because unity or singularity, or indeed (what I think is better said) the union of the divinity, is neither distinguished nor numbered. Therefore, Christ is called one of the Trinity, and the Homousion is not divided, because Christ is asserted not according to that which the Trinity is numbered, but according to that by which one of the Trinity is numbered. Especially since "one," as has been said, is by no means reputed to be in the number, and all things that are numbered by the intellect are not immediately divided in reality also. Hence also Paul says: "One God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord our Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Wherefore, both by reason and by these divine testimonies, that conclusion of yours, collected by many syllogisms, which says that it is not consistent with the truth to call Christ one of the Trinity—because "one" is proper to number, and all number is in division—is proved to be vain and empty.
CAP. XX.
C. With many and superfluous reasonings you have achieved absolutely nothing, except to show yourself, after much labor, a Sabellian, who asserts that the Trinity is one nature, and likewise one substance or person. For thus, as you wish, the number of the Trinity will not be present in any part, not now a Trinity, but only a total union according to a totality: and if it is a total union according to a totality, how is it a Trinity? unless perhaps only in names, and not in substances or persons. You contend that the Trinity, according to Sabellius, as has been said above, and Paul of Samosata, is C this. Or if you confess that the Trinity subsists in realities and substances, and you say one is the Father, another the Son, and another the Holy Spirit, how is the Trinity not numbered? For this very thing, that it is called Trinity, signifies nothing but number. The Trinity, therefore, is numbered, and is not numbered: it is not numbered according to nature, because it is written of it: "And of his wisdom there is no number," but it is numbered according to the persons, because the Trinity is three persons, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, not only the singular number is admitted in the Trinity, but also the plural, although not all things that are in number can be admitted. For it was said according to the plural number: "Let us make man to our image and likeness." And: "We will come, I and the Father, and will make our mansion with him." And: "I and the Father are one," one according to nature, not according to persons. Hence we are taught that "one" is not a number, although it is the origin and principle of number, which always subsists solid and D indivisible. Otherwise, if "one" were reputed by you [index: entries preserved]
N. Whatever is said to be from something, either through generation or through procession, shows one to be from the other: through generation, as the Son from the Father: for God is said to be from God: but through procession, similarly, the Holy Spirit, for it is also written of him: "But we have received not the spirit of this world, but the spirit which is from God." But if Christ is from the Trinity, he is either another through generation, and is the son of the Trinity: or he is another through procession, as if proceeding from the Trinity. And what you think us to be saying, you are caught preaching Christ as a fourth and an outsider to the Trinity, by saying he is from the Trinity. Wherefore I judge it catholic to confess Christ as one in the Trinity, but not one of the Trinity.
C. Just as through generation and through procession
A one is shown from the other, so too through procession beyond doubt one is taught from the other, since it is said even of the creature, "all things are from God." Wherefore those who assert that Christ was created and resurrected by the Trinity, clearly set him forth as a fourth, foreign to the Trinity by creation. Because you have tried to argue this above, you were unwilling to say here that one is from the other through generation and procession, lest you appear to act against yourself. But we, neither through generation, nor through procession, nor through creation, but according to number, confess Christ to be one in the Trinity, just as we are accustomed to demonstrate any one of two or three or more specifically, according to which method there occurs neither a diminution nor an augmentation of that number, by which each one is specially demonstrated. For the number of the apostles is neither diminished nor augmented when it is said: "One of you will betray me," nor does John make himself foreign to the twelve, or prove himself a thirteenth, when he says of himself: "And one of his disciples was reclining in the bosom of Jesus, whom he loved most"; or certainly, no augmentation or diminution of the two disciples going to Emmaus occurred there, when it is said: "And one of them was Cleopas." Wherefore there occurs neither augmentation nor diminution to the Trinity by saying Christ is one in the Trinity, but by a special designation we show that he is one with [those] from the Trinity; and those who preach a confusion of subsistences we reject, and we declare those who believe him to be foreign from the Trinity, to be aliens to the catholic truth. Since you judge that this is contrary to the truth, you are either caught believing in a confusion of substances, or you understand Christ to be wholly foreign to the Trinity. Moreover, to say Christ is one in the Trinity and to deny that he is one of the Trinity is not the property of Catholics, as you assert, but of those who believe that Christ was created by the Trinity in such a way that he is not of the Trinity—that is, they recognize him not according to existence, but according to in-existence. Just as each one of us is in the Trinity, because God is one, in whom we live and move and have our being; or certainly just as it is said, the Father is in the Son, the one is taught in the other: thus when D Christ is said to exist in the Trinity, he is understood to exist as another beside the Trinity.
CAP. XXI.
N. Nothing occurs to me further that I might object to you, except that I consider it better to confess not that Christ is one from the Trinity, but that he is one person from the Trinity, especially because there are three persons of the Trinity.
C. Catholics are not unaware that by some, Christ is thus called one person, so that, however, he who was crucified for us in the flesh is not one person from the Trinity. For they do not believe that the one person of Christ is from two natures naturally united, but they believe that it is from two persons joined together by conjunction and grace A in a communion, saying that Christ is one person from the Trinity, yet they refuse to confess Christ as one from the Trinity; from which you demonstrate that you are one [in opinion with them], because while you say Christ is one person from the Trinity, you decline to say he is one from the Trinity. For who is so foolish and dull-witted as to say: Peter is one person from among men, but Peter is not one of men? Wherefore the catholic definition is to confess God the Word, our Lord Christ, with his own flesh, as one from the Trinity, although he is not according to the flesh of the substance of the Trinity.
N. I never confess Christ as one from the Trinity, because this is read in no canonical Scripture. Moreover, that example which you wished to bring forward regarding Peter is known to pertain nothing to the case, because individual men are divided from one another, which to believe of that indivisible and inseparable Trinity is proven to be altogether impious. But this must be confessed, that without Christ there is no Trinity.
Chapter XXII.
C. If you protest that you say nothing unless what is contained in the canonical Scriptures, where have you read in them that Christ is one in the Trinity, or one person from the Trinity, or certainly that there is no Trinity without Christ? And when this is said, who does not understand that those who assert this are preaching a quaternity? For if there is no Trinity without Christ, then there is a Trinity with Christ. For even with each one of us is the Trinity God, in whom we are not from Him, but in Him, as we have already proven above by the testimony of the Apostle. Therefore Christ is the fourth, with whom the Trinity—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—is. But because you judge that calling Christ one from the Trinity is contrary to the truth, whose voice do you say that is, by which it was said: "Adam has become as one of us"?
N. God's, without a doubt.
C. Many, therefore, and not one is 559 God, of whom one says to the others: "Adam has become as one of us"?
N. There are not many gods, but one God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
C. What then do you profess this voice to be, of this God who is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? And if that is the voice of this God, to whom does he say: "Adam has become as one of us"?
N. God, without a doubt, the Father to God the Son.
C. Since therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is without a doubt one Trinity, when the Father says to the Son: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us": does it not seem to you that he is saying, as one, that is, who is the Trinity?
N. Although the Father says this to the Son, I, however, what is said by Scripture, even if unwilling, confess that D
he does not express it in these very words, I dare not say at all. But it suffices for me, lest I lack the rigor of calumny, to say only this concerning the Son, which is contained in the Creed: namely, that God and Son and only-begotten of the Father was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary.
C. But even he who was condemned at Ephesus said that God was born of a Virgin: not that he truly and properly confessed that God was born of a woman, but on account of the union of the Word of God to the man who was made, whom the Virgin brought forth. N. I say that God the Word was born of a woman according to the flesh.
CHAPTER XXIII.
C. Do you profess that God the Word, whom you say was born of a woman, is outside the Trinity, or the Trinity, or one of the Trinity? N. I confess God the Word to be neither the Trinity nor outside the Trinity, but I confess him to be the Son of God, God born of a woman according to the flesh for our salvation and having suffered; but I am unwilling to use your words, nor do I confess him to be one of the Trinity.
Chapter XXIV.
C. It seems to me that you do not wish to use my words, especially since these are not my words, but those of the truth; but you rather wish to abuse them, in a heretical manner, by denying this very thing that you say. For even the Arians confess with us three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they were condemned because they refused to say "homoousios." Likewise, the Paulianists preach "homoousion" with us, but because they deny the three persons of the Trinity, they were judged as heretics. Therefore, these men who indeed say that God the Word was born according to the flesh of the Virgin, but are unwilling to confess him as one of the Trinity, are equally refuted, as they are either understood to assert with Sabellius one person of the whole Trinity, or they are preaching some other, I know not whom, as God the Word, and not him who is of the Trinity. N. But it is one thing to say there are three persons and to deny the Trinity of one essence, or to confess the "homoousion" and in no way accept the three persons, which in the very facts differs from the truth; and it is another thing to be in agreement regarding the facts, and merely discordant in words. C. What then do you say is Catholic and in agreement with the truth, to say there is one Christ from the Trinity? N. I am unwilling to inquire further with you about this matter. C. Nothing prevents you from inquiring further with me, except that in a heretical sense you are convicted of preaching some God the Word — I know not whom — and not him who is one from the Trinity, according to the Manichaeans. For if you were discordant not in sense, but only in words, you would surely prove that to confess Christ as one from the Trinity is Catholic. N. Does it not seem to you that what you say is the same as what I say, or do you say that some other, I know not whom, and not the true God Jesus Christ, is the one from the Trinity? C. Jesus, without doubt, and I have never known another. N. If therefore it is the same thing, do you dare to call me a heretic if I do not wish to use your words, lest, while I satisfy you, I might seem to show other heretics an occasion for their error? C. If for that reason Christ is not to be confessed as one of the Trinity, lest we seem to give occasion to heretics, then should the three persons and the Trinity not be confessed, lest we give an occasion to the Arians? Nor again should the "homoousion" be confessed, lest we seem similar to the Paulianists? Finally, should the two natures be denied, because Nestorius always and everywhere professed them? But if this were to happen, I do not know what is to be confessed. Nevertheless, if someone should say to you: "I confess the blessed Virgin is Christotokos, but I by no means consent to call her Theotokos," do you pronounce him a Catholic or a heretic? N. I confess he is a heretic without doubt, because the synod has already decreed this, just as it has all those things which were set forth by you above. C. Again, what of the one who says to you: "I confess Christ is one nature of God the Word incarnate and animated by a rational and intellectual soul, but I do not dare to confess two natures"; or certainly one who has said to you: "I believe Christ is from two natures, but I cannot believe he is in two, lest I seem to give occasion to heretics," what is your judgment concerning such people? Do you dare call them heretics, when in other words they are understood to confess two natures in Christ, but, lest they seem to give an occasion to heretics, they do not agree to express it by those very words? N. I judge such people not only to be strangers to the truth, but I also anathematize them; for this and no other is the cause why we do not communicate with the Egyptians.
CAP. XXV.
C. If, therefore, you not only judge as heretics—but even anathematize—those who preach two natures in other words but are unwilling to express this same thing in those very words (although perhaps too hastily), then do you similarly condemn those who call the blessed Mary Christotokos but do not consent to confess her Theotokos? Since it is manifest that Christ is God and God is Christ, B how shall we judge ourselves as Catholics, and those who say that God the Word was born by nature according to the flesh from the Virgin and suffered in the flesh for us, yet deny that he is one from the holy and indivisible Trinity, especially since they say this is in accordance with the Catholic faith? N. But the synod defined that both two natures and Theotokos should be said, but no synod decreed this. C. Do you therefore think nothing should be said except what is contained in the synodal letters? N. Nothing at all. C. If it were objected to you by someone, whether you confess God the Father as begotten or unbegotten, what are you going to answer him? N. Unbegotten, without doubt. C. If he should say to you: "I do not accept this, because no synod decreed this"? N. I reply that it did not forbid saying it either.
C. Again, if he objects to you that the Trinity ought not to be named, because no synod has decreed it? N. I answer him this very thing, and nothing else: for just as it did not decree that it must be said, so neither did it prohibit it at all. C. On the other hand, if he were to say: "Just as it did not forbid it, so also that which is not contained in the words of the councils, it is entirely unfitting to say"—what will you answer to these things? N. I can demonstrate these things from the writings of the Fathers. C. But we also demonstrate from the writings of the Fathers that Christ is one of the Trinity. N. Although I easily believe that this too can be taught from the writings of the Fathers, I do not at all consent to say it, nor will I confer further with you, but I will tenaciously cherish my own opinion. B C. Indeed, I was wondering that human glory could prevail to such an extent that no conclusion could overcome you, so that, corrected by divine authority, you might accept a sentiment harmonious with the truth, which you had hitherto attacked. But because it has been determined by you to remain in your own opinion rather than to approve the true confession for the love of eternal blessedness, I myself will never judge you to be anything other than a heretic, you who do not approve that God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered in the flesh for our salvation, is one of the holy and undivided Trinity, to whom be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
JOANNIS MAXENTII AND OTHERS. EPISTLE TO THE BISHOPS EXILED IN SARDINIA.
(It exists among the Works of Saint Fulgentius. See Migne, *Patrologia Latina* vol. LXV, col. 442.) YEAR OF OUR LORD 525.THEODORUS LECTOR. NOTITIA.
(From Leo Allatius, *Diatriba de Theodoris*, in Mai, *Bibliotheca nova* vol. VI, p. 152.)The two Greek books of the *Collectanea* from ancient authors of ecclesiastical history by Theodorus Anagnostes, that is, the Reader, were published in Paris by Robert Estienne and in Basel at the Froben press in a Latin translation by Wolfgang Musculus. Possevinus adds that they exist in volume VII of the *Bibliotheca veterum Patrum* of Bignaeus, 2nd edition. Then he warns: "But those which Wolfgang Musculus translated, who is prohibited in the first class in the Roman Index, are to be read with caution on account of those things which we have said about him under the entry 'Socrates' and under the entry 'Sozomen'." They were further published at Cologny in the year 1612, not without the same interpretation by Musculus, in folio with other ecclesiastical histories. Vossius, *De historicis Graecis* book II, chapter 32: "He left two books of *Collectanea* of ecclesiastical history. It begins, however, at the death of Theodosius the Younger, and ends in the times of Justin, who began to rule in the year 518."
However, these historical *Collectanea* were not compiled by Theodorus, but by Nicephorus Callistus from the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus, and dictated to others, as the prefixed title indicates: *Εκλογὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Ἱστορίας Θεοδώρου Αναγνώστου, ἀπὸ φωνῆς Νικηφόρου Καλλίστου τοῦ Ξανθοπούλου*. That is to say: *Extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus Lector, from the voice of the dictating Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus*. When the translator omitted these final words, it resulted in these historical *Collectanea* being attributed to Theodorus, though they are in fact excerpts from his History made by Nicephorus Callistus. Baronius also warned us of this under the year 485. For Suidas relates that Theodorus, a reader of the Church of Constantinople, wrote an ecclesiastical history from the times of Constantine up to the reign of Justinian—a work clearly different from the very brief