[1103] These things are justly brought forward. We ordain these things for the common peace of the most holy Churches, and we decree these things, following the dogmas of the holy Fathers, so that all the priesthood may remain undisturbed for us in the future. With this peace preserved, the rest of the commonwealth will abound for us, having peace from above: which the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, the one of the Trinity, the Only-begotten Son of God, both proclaims and grants to those who have been deemed worthy to glorify and worship Him sincerely and truly.
A May your beatitude, therefore, keep what has been correctly noted; and may you send these things through your own God-beloved letters to all the most holy metropolitans subject to you, each of whom shall take care to make these things manifest to the most holy Churches subject to them, so that what has been deemed right by the priesthood and confirmed by the empire may be unknown to no one at all.
Divine subscription.
May the Divinity preserve you for many years, holy and religious Father. Given on the eighth day before the Ides of August, at Constantinople, after the consulship of Belisarius, most illustrious man [in the year of our Lord 536].
TREATISE OF EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST THE MONOPHYSITES
(Ang. Mai, *Vet. Script. collect. nov.*, vol. VII, p. 292.)
Since our emperor Justinian has written a dogmatic treatise excerpted from the holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers to the monks who are in the ninth [region] of the Alexandrians, we have deemed it good to send it to your beatitude; it contains the following:
We consider that the confession of the true faith is the first cause of salvation for all men, especially for those who have chosen the monastic life. For if they strive to chasten the body, how much more ought they to instruct the soul in the faith toward God, through which we hope to enjoy eternal life. For if the work of faith, which is more perfect, is not in harmony with a corresponding way of life, it is necessary, according to Scripture, that work without faith be dead: for, it says, "No one is crowned unless he has competed according to the rules." B To be sick is part of the common nature and of human infirmity, to which all are subject, even those most powerful in intellect; but to be healed, and to recognize the true faith, and to embrace the unity and peace of the Church, is a matter of reason and charity. For God both is and is called the God of peace; so that those who appear to love the good of faith and peace pertain to God and are almost divine. These things, moreover, to your piety [2 Tim. ii, 5].
A we say, having learned from what was written to us by the most blessed archbishop of Alexandria and patriarch Zoilus, that you, loving the peace that is dear to God, have hastened to the holy Church of God, judging to be true the dogmas proclaimed therein, by which every heresy has been expelled, and condemned and cast out as well is the division of Paul and Nestorius—of those who are blinded in the eyes of their soul and, following the madness of the Jews, deny the divinity of Christ; and likewise, there has been condemned and cast out the conjunction, or rather confusion, of Apollinarius and Eutyches, of those who abolish the true humanity of Christ. Therefore, we exhort your B piety to gather henceforth the fruits of the faith, and to lead those who are still held fast by error toward the truth, and to bring them to the holy Church of God, whose true and saving proclamation we shall, as we proceed, demonstrate through both the divine Scriptures and the traditions of the Fathers, and we shall refute the evil-mindedness of the aforementioned impious heretics.
For the holy Church of God proclaims a unity in Trinity and a Trinity in unity. For there is one God the Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things—"from whom and through whom and in whom"—not dividing into natures, but characterizing the properties of one and unconfused nature. For we worship one substance in three hypostases, contemplating the same substance in each hypostasis. And we declare each of the C hypostases singly; but since it is necessary to number them, we are not carried away into a nonsensical numbering toward an idea of polytheism. For we do not count by addition, creating an increase from one into a multitude, but by confessing the property of the hypostases, we remain in the monarchy, not scattering the theology into a divided multitude, but contemplating a unity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as it were a form, subsisting in the unchangeable nature. And thus we confess each to be God, if it is considered by the mind alone, separating the inseparable; and we understand the three as God together, by the identity of movement and of nature. The Trinity, then, is most truly the Trinity. But three is not a counting of unequal things, but a comprehension of equal and peer things, D the appellation uniting what is united by nature, and not allowing to be separated by a divided number things that are not divided.
We confess moreover that the only-begotten Son and Word of God, who is glorified and worshiped with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who was begotten from the Father timelessly and incorporeally, the light from light, the fountain of life and of immortality, the impression of the Archetype, the untainted seal, the image in no way dissimilar, the definition and Word of the Father, did not overlook man, who by the envy of the devil and the bitter taste of sin was miserably separated from God who had created him. But, working our salvation, he comes to his own image, and is incarnate for our flesh, and for our soul—
A mixing himself with it, purifying like with like, and becoming man in all things, save for sin. And he who reached above the heaven of heavens, B is glorified above the setting of our infirmity; for the divine and excelling power is shown not so much by the magnitude of the heavens, the brightness of the stars, the ordering of the universe, and the eternal economy of things that are, as it is shown by that descent toward the weakness of our nature. For how is the High One, having become lowly, contemplated in lowliness without descending from his majesty? The Divinity, therefore, being infused into human nature, becomes this and is that; for this reason, we confess him to be perfect God and perfect man, for all that he suffered, B so that he might grant salvation to me as a whole, having untied the whole condemnation of sin. For the Fullness is emptied, and his glory is emptied for a little time, so that I might partake of his fullness, and he who is rich becomes poor. But how does he who is rich become poor? Saint Athanasius says in his discourse on the saving manifestation: "He assumed into himself the nature that had become poor, that in his justice he might exalt it after the passion above men, so that it might appear to be out of men and above men, and that the whole might be made of God, so that man might be truly God, and God might be truly man; for the Only-begotten Son of God was pleased, by the fullness of his divinity, to raise up to himself, by natural generation and indissoluble union, the formation of the Archetype that is man, and his new creation, from the Virgin's womb."
Following these things, then, we acknowledge C his miracles and the sufferings which he voluntarily underwent, in the flesh. For the Holy Trinity does not receive the addition of a fourth person by the Word of God being incarnate and becoming man; nor do we know the God Word and Christ to be different, but we confess one and the same God Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. And if it must be said concisely, there are "another and another" things from which the Savior is formed, if the visible is not the same as the invisible, nor the timeless the same as that which is under time. But he is not "another and another"—God forbid; for out of both he is one, and by one, both. Hence, when we speak of the Only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, as "another and another" out of one and the same, we do not introduce two sons, or two hypostases, or two persons, but we recognize that he is in these things from which he is; for thus we demonstrate both the difference of his divinity and of his flesh, destroying the intermingling (συνουσίωσιν) of Eutyches, and we confess his one hypostasis, D abominating the division of Nestorius. For of this, Saint Cyril also discourses in his third book against Nestorius: "For it is not because he has become as we are that he will ever lose being God; nor, because he is God by nature, does he have the likeness toward us unacceptable, nor will he refuse to be man. But as he has remained God in his humanity, so also he is in no way inferior in his nature and the excellence of his divinity. Both, therefore, are in the same, and the Emmanuel is together one God and man."
A We must linger here on the things said by the Father; for he teaches us to confess the preposition "in" regarding the two natures, the divine and the human, in which the one Christ is recognized. The heretics deny that this preposition is fitting for the divinity and humanity of Christ, pretending that a division is caused thereby, ignorant that this preposition preserves the union as unconfused and indivisible. Hence, Holy Scripture also uses this same preposition regarding the divinity and humanity of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. For instance, the divine apostle Paul says: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in human form." [Phil. 2:5-7] When the Apostle says that the only-begotten Son of God exists in the form of God, and adds that he took the form of a servant, was born in the likeness of men, and was found in human form, he teaches us nothing other than that the Lord is in both forms—that is, in divinity and humanity.
Indeed, blessed Cyril also, interpreting this passage in his discourse to Theodosius, writes as follows: "The God Word, co-eternal with God the Father, taking the form of a servant, is, just as he is perfect in divinity, so also perfect in humanity; not compounded of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ and Lord and Son, but wonderfully joined into one and the same from two perfects, I mean from humanity and divinity." B Behold, the Father clearly confesses again that Christ exists in divinity and humanity. And just as "from divinity and humanity" signifies "from two natures," so also "in divinity and humanity" shows that Christ exists and is recognized in two natures.
And it has become clear that that which is said to consist of certain things, if it is not recognized within those things from which it has consisted, causes a confusion and destruction of the constituent realities. Regarding this, the same holy Cyril again says against the Synousiasts: "But if they say that flesh and the Word have been mixed with one another after the manner of liquids, how have they failed to know that these liquids mixed with one another—wine and honey, for example—are no longer merely what they were, but by the assumption of a quality of a different kind, they have shifted into something else? C Therefore, if they say that the flesh has been mixed with the Word, it will be absolutely necessary to say that each of the things named has departed from what it was, and that from both has been produced something intermediate and of a different nature, entirely different from what each was in its respective part."
Since it is therefore proven that in things not preserved after composition a confusion occurs, it is evident that in those in which there is neither confusion nor obscurity of the constituent realities, because it is composed of something, it is also recognized in them, and it is manifest that those who confess "from two natures," D
"A must also confess that He is recognized in those very two natures from which He was composed—which is in deity and humanity. For in this way, neither is the difference of the natures in Christ abolished, nor is the unity of them preserved as an indivisible whole. For of whose difference do they speak, unless they concede that that which made Christ is preserved within Him? This is so, although Saint Cyril writes in the twenty-fourth discourse of the *Thesaurus*: "He speaks these things as man, but He speaks also as God, having the power in both. For as man He said: *Now is my soul troubled.* But as God He says again: *I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.* To be troubled is the proper suffering of the flesh; but to have the power to lay down and take again the soul is a work of the power of the Word." And again the same saint, Cyril, in his commentary on the Gospel according to John, in the sixth discourse of the second book, says: "For as one already made man, having put on the form of a servant, by reason of having been united to the flesh, his speech was neither free nor altogether relaxed for the plainness of speech that became God; but he used such speech primarily as, on account of the economy (the incarnation), would befit at once both God and man; for of the same one, both things were truly said." B When the Father says that Christ is both things and has power in both, he reveals nothing else than that He exists and is recognized in two natures; for when the words "God" and "man" are asserted of Christ, they are indicators of substances.
Yet the enemies of the truth, despising all the documents of the Fathers, and especially those which were brought forth by Saint Cyril concerning the condemnation of the blasphemer Nestorius and confirmed by the council, interpret according to their own will only certain things from the commentaries of Saint Cyril to Sucensus—namely, that only the nature of God the Word was incarnate and that man was an exemplar—and they do what heretics are accustomed to do: namely, to interpret the words of the Holy Scriptures according to their own error. But from these things which were said by this Father, we will demonstrate the insanity and error of them concerning these matters. C They take the preceding words and interrupt their context, striving to establish their own error; whereas in reality the Father said: "After the union we do not divide the natures from each other, nor do we cut the one and indivisible into two Sons, but we say one Son." And after they demonstrate that after the union the natures are not to be divided, but those united in Christ are to be confessed, they, passing over these things in silence, invent a single nature of flesh and divinity. But the holy Father, not, as they imagine, one of flesh and
divinity does he call a nature, but, having spoken of one nature of the Word made flesh A, he stood not at this, but added "made flesh," so that through "made flesh," he might set before us the other nature—that is to say, the human. Indeed, not satisfied with such an expression, but wishing to set forth his own meaning more clearly, he immediately adds what they, in turn, omit: "So far, then, as it has been given to us to understand and to see with the eyes of our soul how the Only-Begotten became man, we say there are two natures, but one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God who became man and took flesh." What can be clearer than these words? Or what doubt any longer remains to those who think soundly concerning the confession of the two natures in Christ, with the Father having set this before us? B But they, endeavoring in all things to distort the truth, add this also to their own nonsensical chatter, saying that what is perceived according to the intellect and with the eyes of the soul should not be confessed with the mouth. But there is nothing more unreasonable than such mischief of theirs; for according to their folly, they would not even confess God with their mouth, since we know Him only according to the intellect and the eyes of the soul. Yet even the Father himself also spoke and set forth in writing those things which he perceived with the eyes of the soul; for we do not know what was perceived by him otherwise than through his own words and writings. But if, according to the madness of the heretics, it is not fitting to confess things perceived by the mind alone, how will they confess the ineffable divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, his incarnation being indeed outwardly manifest, but his divinity being perceived by the mind alone? C But if, according to the divine Apostle, *with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation* (Rom. x, 10), it is evident that things perceived by the mind are also to be confessed with the mouth; for as the Theologian Gregory says: "A mind that is silent is a reason that is asleep; for it is shameful, it is shameful, and sufficiently irrational, for those who are strong in spirit to utter feeble voices, and to hide the treasure as if envying others, if you have not also sanctified your tongue out of fear."
Such being the case, it behooves all men who have received the great mystery of godliness of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, to confess also with the mouth the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human. D For in his second commentary to the same Sucensus, the holy Cyril, while accepting his orthodox faith concerning the incarnation, and at the same time demonstrating his own opinion more clearly, delivers these things, saying: "Most truly and most prudently your perfection sets forth the discourse concerning the Savior's passion, affirming that the Only-Begotten Son of God himself, according to that which he is thought to be and is God, did not suffer in his own nature those things which are of the body, but rather suffered in the earthly nature; for necessarily
A both must be preserved in the one and true Son—both that he did not suffer as God, and that it is said he suffered as man; for it was his flesh that suffered. It is clear, therefore, from what has been said, that the two natures, that is, the divine and the human, are preserved in the one hypostasis, which is the one person of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; for it says that both must be preserved in the one and true Son. The addition that he must make clear to us his indisputable knowledge regarding this dogma also signifies that "both" is not of one nature, but of two; for just as the same Father teaches that he did not suffer in his divine nature, but suffered in the earthly nature, no one would be so insane as to suppose it to be of one nature. We have been taught to confess the passion and impassibility of our one and same Lord Jesus Christ, but not according to the same nature; for it is impossible for things contrary to each other to signify the same thing in one and the same nature.
But the enemies of the truth and the adversaries of the doctrines of the Fathers, not B discerning this, fall again into another folly, saying that those who confess Christ to be God and man, and do not say that he is of one nature, as a man is, ought not to say only two natures in Christ, but three; for one is the nature of the Word, another that of the soul, and another that of the body. Let these new inventors of evils who assert these things, since they agree with us that Christ consists of two natures, explain how they understand this? How, therefore, do they understand a soul snatched away from the body, or a body without a soul? For they will certainly present one of these absurdities. But if, avoiding this absurdity, C they say that the Lord has assumed both a soul and a body, they, being caught in their own nets, will be seen to be forced to say that Christ consists of three natures. They are ignorant that the name "man," when taken without properties, is understood in a common sense, is significant of substance or nature, and is said of many hypostases; but when properties are added to the common sense, then the hypostasis is revealed, and the distinction between soul and body is also recognized; for the apostolic tradition teaches us to speak of both. D The divine Paul, speaking of these things individually, wishing to signify soul and body, speaks of the inner man and the outer man. Jacob, demonstrating the common substance of humanity, says: "For every nature of beasts and birds, of serpents and the rest, is tamed and has been tamed by human nature." The name "Christ," however, is not significant of substance, since it is neither taken in a common sense, nor is it said of many hypostases, nor is it confessed without properties. For this also the holy Cyril teaches us in his scholia on the incarnation, saying: "The name Christ has neither a determinative power, nor indeed [does it signify] the substance of anyone..."
just as, for instance, [do the words] man or horse or ox." A If, however, according to the blasphemy of the heretics, the name Christ were indicative of substance just as "man" is, many Christs would, according to them, be found to exist, for whom they speak of a common substance of Christ. But if this is impious and altogether alien to Christianity—for there is one Lord Jesus Christ—evidently they do not confess Christ in person or in hypostasis.
Let us consider in another way how the mystery of the Economy B differs from the example taken from man. For man is composed of soul and body, both of which are created; but our Lord Jesus Christ, being the same God and man, is according to his divinity eternal and uncreated, but according to his humanity, he is a creature and born in time. Whence the same is uncreated and created, before time and in time. And for this reason, we, confessing all things of one and the same [person], ascribe some to his divine nature and others to his human nature. Let us hear also the holy Proclus in his discourse on the Mother of God, teaching us things similar to these; for he speaks as follows: "A wondrous birth, a beginning and not a beginning of him who was produced; for he became the beginning of humanity, but the divinity remained without beginning." Let not men be deceived, therefore, C nor let them deceive, by pretending that Christ is of one substance based on the example taken from man; for examples are not in all respects similar to those things of which they are taken as examples; for if they should be found to be in all respects similar, they would be the same things entirely, and not examples. Indeed, the holy Cyril himself uses the example of man for no other purpose than to profligate the blasphemy of Paul and Nestorius, who divide the natures from one another and take them to be two persons, or hypostases, and therefrom speak of two Sons and two Christs, fashioning one [who is] the Son from God and the Father, and another [who is] from the holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary. As for this reason, they do not even confess her to be the Theotokos, but say that he who was born of her is a mere man, and that he was deemed worthy of [the title of] sonship by grace and by familiarity and relation toward the Son who is by nature, by advancement.
To prove that Paul and Nestorius blasphemed in this way, we have set forth a few of their written impieties, D denouncing their madness to all Christians. For the impious Paul says in those things written about him: "The Word conjoined himself to him who was born from David, who is Jesus Christ, who was conceived of the Holy Spirit. And this one the Virgin carried through the Holy Spirit, but that Word God generated without a Virgin and without any assistance, except for God; and thus did the Word subsist." And again, the same impious Paul says: "The Word was greater than Christ; Christ became greater on account of wisdom; let us not withdraw the majesty of wisdom."
And again, the same heretic Paul says: "For He was in the prophets, but rather He was Lord in Moses and in many, and rather in Christ as in a temple; for Jesus Christ is one, and the Word is another." A Then again the impious Nestorius says: "Nowhere, therefore, does the holy Scripture say that God was born from the Christ-bearing Virgin." And again the same man-worshipper Nestorius says: "Arising, he took the child and his mother; he did not say: Arising, he took God and His Mother." And again the same impious Nestorius says: "It is one thing to be with the one born, and another thing to be born; for what was born in her, he says, is from the Holy Spirit; that is, the Holy Spirit created the One in her." The Fathers, therefore, as experts in the divine Scriptures, saw that if in place of "incarnate" we put "born," the God-Word is found to be the Son of the Spirit, and having two fathers; but if there is one Son, the God-Word will be found to be a creature of the Spirit. B And again the same impious Nestorius says: "But just as we used to call God the Creator of all, and we called Moses God (For I have set thee as God to Pharaoh), and Israel as the Son of God (For Israel is My son, My firstborn), and just as we used to call Saul Christ (For I will not, he says, lay my hand upon him, for he is the Christ of the Lord), and Cyrus likewise (Thus says, he says, the Lord to my Christ Cyrus), and the Babylonian holy (For I will, he says, command them: they are sanctified, and I will lead them), so we say that the Lord Christ is both God and Son and holy and Christ." And again the same impious Nestorius says: "I C worship the carried because of the Bearer; I worship the visible because of the Hidden One; God is not separated from the visible; therefore, I do not separate the honor of the One who is not separated; I separate the natures, but I join the worship." And again the same impious Nestorius says: "And Christ is also called the God-Word, inasmuch as He has the conjunction with Christ as continuous." And again the same impious Nestorius says: "The blessed Virgin did not give birth to the Son of God, but she gave birth to humanity, which is Son, because of the conjoined Son." And these things, indeed, Paul and Nestorius, the impious ones, said, surpassing the impiety of the Greeks and Jews. D The cause of their ruin, however, was not that they confessed the two births of one and the same Lord our Jesus Christ, our true God—that is, the one eternal from the Father according to divinity, and the other of the same in the last days from the holy and glorious Virgin and Mother of God Mary according to humanity—but that they said there were two Sons: the one indeed the God-Word born from the Father, the other, however, the mere man from the holy Virgin. And therefore they do not confess the holy Virgin as Mother of God, and therefore they follow neither the doctrine of the prophets nor of the evangelists nor of the apostles. Ad
For the refutation, however, of their impiety, we have set forth a few testimonies from the many contained in the Scriptures. For Jeremiah, etc. But the reader must attend to the discourses of Cyril; for after he said that no pouring of the natures into one another had taken place, but rather that each remains in the union, he clearly teaches the truth: namely, that the two natures of divinity and humanity are preserved and confessed in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ. B Driven from these positions, the heretics invent another impiety, wishing by it to cast a shadow over the former. For there are times when they also fabricate a single composite nature, ignoring that—as is demonstrated by the teaching of the Fathers, and as we ourselves have said above—the term "nature" is spoken of regarding a common thing, and it signifies something indeterminate and is predicated of many hypostases. If, therefore, the two natures of divinity and humanity have become, according to them, one composite nature, it is manifest that something common and indeterminate has been created; and it is necessary to inquire of what commonality, or of which hypostases, they say such a nature is predicated, which is contrary to the mystery concerning Christ. For Christ is not predicated as something common and pertaining to many hypostases, but is said to be recognized in one hypostasis, or one person, in the distinct substances of divinity and humanity. C And we, for our part, speaking of two substances in Christ, know Him to be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit according to divinity, but according to humanity we recognize Him as consubstantial with all men. Those who say that the two substances form one composite nature—which is to say that it is [composed] of certain common things—render this same commonality; for it is necessary, according to their words, that something intermediate be produced, of a different nature than what each was in its separate parts. D From this, then, the folly of their position is refuted; for if all confess the nature of the holy Trinity to be simple and incomposite, while they introduce a composite nature for the Son, a nature of the Son will be found, according to them, that is other than the nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But the discovery of the composite nature is the work of none other than the teacher of their error, Apollinarius, who at one time spoke of one composite nature, and at another fabricated one of divinity and humanity. This can be investigated from the writings of that same heretic; for in the discourse which he writes against those who said that a man had been assumed by the Word, he says the following: "Christ is one man, as the Father is one God, who is of nature, so that this also is of a composite nature, being intermediate between God and man." And again the same impious Apollinarius, in his discourse on the divine incarnation, in the thirteenth chapter, says this: "Flesh which can in no way be moved except by a mover and external agent, how could that ever be? It is not of itself a perfect animal; but when it had been established that this perfect animal itself should come to be, it [was to have been] joined with its leader...
to the heavenly leading element, having been made familiar to it according to its own passibility, and having received the divinity made familiar to it according to its active power. For thus one animal consisted of the moved and the mover, and not two, nor [did it consist] of two complete and self-moving entities. Wherefore, while man is one kind of animal in relation to God, and is not God, but a servant of God—even if he is some heavenly power, it is the same—but the flesh, having become the flesh of God, is an animal subsequently composed into one nature.
From the words of the same heretic Apolinarius from his books against Diodorus: "The instrument and that which communicates have a natural tendency to produce one operation; but if the operation is one, the substance is one; therefore, one substance of the Word and the flesh has come to be."
From the same [author] in his discourse on the Incarnation: "O new creation, divine commixture, God and flesh have produced one and the same nature!"
From the same to Peter: "We call the Lord God by nature and man by nature, but [he is] of one and compound nature, both carnal and divine."
That Saint Cyril among the saints rejects those who speak of a composite nature, and who devise one nature of flesh and divinity, we shall immediately demonstrate from the very words of this Father; for so he speaks in his discourse against the Synousiasts: "That we may believe that, even if his holy and most pure body was by nature similar to our bodies, it is nevertheless venerable and divine, and far above our human measures, inasmuch as it has become his own proper possession; for he has operated through it. Therefore it is also called the bread of life; and moreover it is said to have descended from heaven, and to give life to the world through the Word who descended from above and from heaven, of whom the flesh also became his own. His flesh is therefore divine, as he says; B yet not so that anyone who has a firm mind and is skilled in dogmatic expertise would conjecture that it passed over into the nature of divinity. For in that nature which is above all things and heavenly, the simplicity and the unmixed state with anything else must be entirely preserved, and it must not be thought that it is composed with those things that were joined to it, or that it lacked any addition, or [that it came] into communion with any thing unlike itself, so that it might descend into an identity of nature or consubstantiality."
Through these words the Father C clearly forbids calling the nature of Christ composite, [derived] from divinity and humanity, since the divine nature did not receive the human [nature] joined to it in such a way as to produce with it one nature.
The foolishness of the adversaries having therefore been confuted, it remains evident that the two natures coming together did not produce a composite nature, but a composite Christ, since he is God by nature, and man by nature, even if he is confessed as the same. But the enemies of the truth, occupied in other foolishness, not wishing to follow the doctrines of the Fathers, but having become the heralds of Apolinarius, leave no path of madness untried by which they may corrupt the souls of the more innocent; for, deceitfully casting aside the name of Apolinarius as a clear proof of impiety, they [inscribe] the names of the holy Fathers in his books and in... D
their own fabrications, stealing away the more simple-minded and straying from the path of truth. They produce two letters, falsely inscribed, one written by Julius, bishop of Rome A (2) to Dionysius the presbyter, which contains as follows: (as in the edition of Muratori) and another written as if by Athanasius, who is among the saints, to the Emperor Jovian, which has it thus: "We confess the Son of God, who was begotten of the Father before the ages, from eternity, in the fullness of time, for our salvation, begotten of the holy Virgin Mary according to the flesh, according to what the divine Apostle teaches, saying: 'When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman.' We confess also that He is the Son of God, God according to the Spirit, Son of man according to the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, one to be worshipped and the other not to be worshipped, but one nature of God the Word incarnate, and worshipped with His flesh in one adoration."
B Now, since these things have been put forward by the Acephali, the wisdom of God, having struck down their malice from above, did not permit the falsehood to remain unrefuted; for He has granted us to encounter the writings of Apolinarius, and by comparing them with those things put forward by these men, we shall manifestly prove that those things are advanced by them from the words of Apolinarius. For the same Apolinarius writes these things in his treatise against Diodorus: "It is not just that there should be one and the same adoration for the two different substances, that is, of the Creator and the creature, of God and of man. But the adoration of Christ is one, and in that one name God and man is understood; therefore God and man is not one and another substance, but one through the conjunction of God to the human body." C And again in the same treatise: "For how would such an act not be impious, to confess another created and servile substance and that it is owed the same adoration as the Creator and Lord?" And again the same impious Apolinarius in the treatise on the incarnation: "It is impossible for the same one to know himself to be both to be worshipped and not to be worshipped; therefore it is impossible for the same to be God and man completely, but [it is] in the unity of a commingled divine incarnate nature."
Now, how these things are in agreement and consistent with the letters falsely brought forward by the Acephali under the name of our holy Fathers, Julius and Athanasius, is hidden from no one of sound mind; D for to say that there are not two natures, one to be worshipped and one not to be worshipped, and again that there is one and the same adoration of two different substances, is unjust; likewise to have the created and servile substance have one and the same adoration as the Creator and Lord has no difference either in words or in meaning. Therefore, having proved that the two letters brought forward by the heretics are nothing other than the error of Apolinarius, and are alien to the Catholic Church, it remains for us to demonstrate that the holy
A Fathers have shown that the fabrications of the Acephali are likewise contrary to those things set forth by them. (There follow the well-known testimonies of Athanasius and Cyril.)
(Thence p. 229.) We trust that it has been clearly demonstrated through all the aforementioned [arguments] that what is brought forward by the heretics is contrary to the doctrines of the holy Fathers and alien to the Christian faith; since the holy Athanasius and the holy Cyril clearly confess two natures of Christ, the divinity and the humanity, calling the one uncreated and the other created, and teaching that our one Lord Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with a single adoration. B The aforementioned is therefore sufficient to refute the machination of the Acephali. Yet nothing better refutes their folly, or rather their machination, than the letter brought forward by them as if it were of Julius, bishop of Rome, the falsification of which is shown in other ways. For the priests of elder Rome, following in all things the apostolic tradition, never disagreed among themselves, but have preserved the correct and true doctrine down to this day. Furthermore, it is not the custom for the patriarch of elder Rome to use such a document as they bring forward, we do not say to presbyters, as they falsely claim, but not even to bishops, nor to the patriarchs themselves. Third, that after we had sent to the archives of the episcopal palace of elder Rome, we found nothing of the kind written by Julius of holy memory. But the letter brought forward by them as being from the holy Athanasius to Jovian is refuted as absolutely false in many ways; for it bears neither the character of a letter, nor is it written in a style suitable for an emperor. Moreover, in the times of Jovian, no controversy had been stirred up regarding the humanity of Christ, but rather regarding the consubstantiality in the C Trinity, such as was the Arian madness which at that time was troubling the Churches; regarding which the true letter of holy Athanasius written to Jovian is extant, which Gregory the Theologian mentions in the funeral oration for Saint Athanasius, and which Timothy, a disciple of Apolinarius, records in its entirety in his history, having it thus... (There follows the published letter of Athanasius to Jovian.)
Now, let us speak of Timothy Aelurus, who agrees with the Manichaeans but teaches things contrary to those same holy Fathers, Athanasius and Cyril; D for this same Timothy says in the eighth chapter of the third book, which he wrote in Chersonesus: "The nature of Christ is divinity alone, even if He has been incarnate." And Manichaeus himself, writing in his letter to Cundarus, says this: "The whole is one nature, even if the form of flesh is seen." But to this we say that if, according to the madness of Timothy, the nature of Christ is divinity alone, then Christ is also the Father and the Holy Spirit; for the nature of the divinity—that is, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—is one. There will also be the passion that is common...
according to A his madness.
Again, Timotheus the blasphemer, as if not satisfied with his former foolish utterances, in the second of his books of antitheses, reveals his malady more clearly; for he speaks thus: “For the incarnation of the Word of God does not have a rationale of nature, but of an economy performed by God beyond nature, out of our common and human nature, that is, substance; therefore he is also called connatural and of the same race and consubstantial with us according to the rationale of the economy—that is, the birth from a woman—but the immaculate and congeneric flesh of the Word of God is never called the nature or substance of any common man.” Therefore, from what has been said, it is manifest that B Timotheus denies that the incarnation of the Word of God has a rationale of nature. But if it does not have a rationale of nature, he says that it appeared only by semblance [phantasia]; for he says: “From our common and human nature, that is, substance, the God Word was generated, that is, from a woman, and according to this alone is he said to be connatural and of the same race and consubstantial with us, and God was born from a woman.” He says that the Lord himself, according to nature, that is, substance, has nothing common with men, nor is he consubstantial with us; for he adds: “Neither is the nature C nor the substance of any common man ever called the immaculate and congeneric flesh of the Word of God.” But in denying that the body of the Lord shares in our nature, he is clearly using the expression of the “Only-Begotten” for the sake of deception and guile, and he understands nothing else by this than that he was generated as a human by semblance, and appeared as a human by appearance, not by nature. But if these things be so according to the madness of Timotheus, it is clearly established that he asserts that the passion, the cross, the death, and the D resurrection of the Lord also took place by semblance, which is what the Manichaean also says.
And again, Timotheus, adding worse things to his own blasphemies, and in the fourth chapter of the aforementioned third book, says these things: “Let the Diphysites demonstrate to us the difference of the two natures of Christ, as they claim, if they can.” See, he clearly denies the difference of the two natures in Christ; and in this, he likewise opposes all the other holy Fathers, and especially Athanasius and Cyril.
And again, Timotheus the heretic, conceiving greater blasphemies for himself, puts forward a prophetic utterance speaking thus: “Sending to men his Christ, and the Lord God Almighty is his name.” Then, interpreting these things wickedly, he adds: “He himself, therefore, sent through himself to men; the sun, seeing this, set at noon. But that was not received through human generation, that is, through human nature; for otherwise, human nature would have completely and permanently dissolved the virginity; for if the man who was to be brought to perfection in the bosom of the Virgin had been a man according to nature and law, he would not have been born from her, unless first
the virginity had been dissolved. But these things are against the head of Timothy and those who follow him; for he blasphemes, opposing both the divine Scripture and the holy Fathers, not perceiving that in this especially is the miracle of the mystery of piety, that the only-begotten Son and Word of God, being God by nature and incarnate in the womb of the Virgin, and having become man by nature, was born from her, and preserved the Mother a Virgin.
B Saint Cyril, in the sermon on the necessity of confessing the Mother of God as Virgin, says these things: "We acknowledge the Lord and God Christ; for the Word of God became man for our sake, partaking of human nature, and was produced for us by an ineffable bond of love, from the holy and ever-Virgin woman. Therefore, he is called man; and he is called God, while by each appellation one and the same Christ is understood." These things, therefore, we have set forth from the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers for the refutation of the heretics, by which all Christians may know how Dioscorus and Timothy the Weasel, those open heretics, are shown to hold opinions clearly in line with Mani and Apollinarius.
Hear also Saint Cyril, how clearly he explains in his sermon that the holy Mother of God must be confessed as Virgin; for he speaks thus: "But let us also consider this: if the divine Apostle had not known Christ as God at the same time and man, he would not have said 'according to the flesh'; for this is said significantly not only of man, but also of anyone having substance. Therefore, he also added, 'Who is God over all'; for he has handed down to us a twofold confession concerning the Savior, demonstrating him according to the flesh, and proclaiming him God." And again the Apostle to Timothy: "One God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all."
C Saint Ambrose says these things: "The Word of God did not take his beginning from the Virgin, but, being coeternal with his own Father, he deigned to unite to himself the beginning of our nature on account of his great goodness; not commingled, but appearing one and the same in each substance, according to what is written: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' For Jesus Christ is destroyed according to my substance which he took, and the same [person], according to his own divine substance, by which he is also the creator of all things, rebuilds the destroyed temple." And in the Gospel according to Matthew, the Lord says to him who betrayed him: "Dost thou betray the Son of man with a kiss?" This, Peter the martyr and archbishop of Alexandria interpreting...
A renders thus: "And all the signs that he performed, and his powers, testify concerning him that he is God incarnate: both things, therefore, are demonstrated at once, that he was by nature God, and that he was made by nature man."
We must observe, however, that while the Apostle said "who," he indicated that the hypostasis of the Word existed in the form of God, which is in the substance of the Father. He did not say that he assumed one who existed in the form of a servant, lest, according to the madness of Nestorius, he should manifest a pre-existing man; but he said that he received the form of a servant, that is, the substance of man; showing that the flesh had its existence in the hypostasis of the Word, so that one and the same, existing in one hypostasis, B might be recognized in each form, that is, in each nature, both divine and human. For it is clear that God the Word, born of the Father before all ages, is not of the same hypostasis as the Father, but of the same substance in that he is God, yet he has his own proper hypostasis in that he is the Word. And, born in the last of the days according to the flesh of the holy and glorious Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, he is not of the same hypostasis as his Mother, but of the same substance. Then how do the Acephali speak of a union of two hypostases, even though they do not admit a union of two hypostases *according to hypostasis*? Are they ignorant that Nestorius was condemned for such an error, C because he introduced two hypostases into the economy? But although these things are so, the Acephali prefer to confess the dogmas of Nestorius and of every heresy as more impudent, rather than assent to the truth. And these things we have to say against them.
The holy Ambrose, interpreting the same word of the Apostle in his discourse against Apollinarius, writes this: "The Apostle has made most excellent use of the repetition of the same words, saying concerning our Lord Jesus Christ: *Who, being in the form of God, did not account it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.* What is the form of God, if not that impression of divine perfection in the fullness of the divinity? Since, therefore, he was at this summit of divinity, he emptied himself, and received perfectly and integrally the nature of man; and as he left nothing to God, so neither did he to the restoration of man, that he might be found perfect in each nature." D
We deem that what has been set forth from the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers is sufficient for the demonstration that there is one hypostasis, or one person, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he is recognized in two natures, namely, in divinity and humanity—even if we have brought forward a few things out of many, lest we make the writing too long. But since it happens at times that the truth is revealed even by the enemies, just as also the demons, even against their will, confessed Christ to be the Son of God, we shall show that Severus himself, successor of Apollinarius and of the error of the Acephali,
confesses that all the holy Fathers have spoken of two natures in Christ without blame. He says, for example, in the discourse which he calls the *Exposition of Faith*, the following: “To speak of two natures,” etc. A Then, persisting in these same things, he says in what follows that1 he is unable to set forth the voices of those Fathers who used the expression without blame, even if the words of Cyril himself had been recited before this. If, therefore, Severus himself admits that all the holy Fathers, and indeed also the one among the holy, Cyril, used the expression without blame, who then would arrogate to himself such authority as to condemn the teaching of the holy Fathers? Or how does Severus call them Fathers if he claims that their dogmas are to be condemned? B But he has shown himself clearly to be one who, being unable to escape the truth, confessed that this expression was indeed used by the Fathers, yet, wishing to cure his own disease, he asserts that the teaching of the Fathers was condemned because of the blasphemies of Nestorius; which is worthy of laughter. By these things he attempted to bring the holy Fathers to nothing, and did not hesitate to slander the holy Cyril, as if he were opposing both the things previously said by himself and the holy Fathers. However, since he affirms that the holy Fathers used this expression without blame up to the times of Nestorius, we shall show that the holy Cyril, using the expression of two natures concerning the economy of the Savior, condemned Nestorius; and again, after the condemnation of Nestorius, the same holy Cyril used the same teaching. For Severus seems to have understood neither the holy Fathers nor the cause for which Nestorius was condemned; for the holy Fathers, confessing two natures of the divinity and humanity of Christ united, forbade that two hypostases or two sons be spoken of in Him; C for Nestorius, confessing that nature, hypostasis, and person are the same, and on this account denying the union of the two natures in hypostasis, and speaking of the two natures separately and as having independent hypostases, and from this fabricating two sons and two Christs, was on account of that blasphemy of his condemned by the holy Fathers; and therefore the holy Cyril, beating back his Jewish madness at the synod of Ephesus, brought forward the holy Fathers forbidding that two sons be spoken of, but preaching two natures and one Son. From all that has been said, therefore, it is proven that the holy Cyril, both before the condemnation of Nestorius, and in that same condemnation, and after his condemnation, did not cease to continuously preach the confession concerning the two natures in the one Christ. But Severus, the enemy of the truth, understanding none of these things, calls the Fathers by the name of Fathers, but denies the dogmas rightly handed down by them to the Church, not knowing that Nestorius was indeed condemned for his own impiety, but that the teaching of the Fathers has not been destroyed by him. For if, according to the madness of Severus, the words rightly preached by the holy Fathers, but maliciously interpreted by the heretics, are to be removed, he will overturn also
A the divine Scripture, from which heretics are confident that they can draw remedies for their own disease. It is clear, therefore, according to their absurdities, that the divine Scriptures and the traditions of the Fathers are to be rejected.
These, then, are the things that we assert against the heretics who overturn the doctrine of the Fathers. But the holy Church of God, turning away from these same absurdities of the heretics, and preserving the tradition of our Lord and of the holy apostles and Fathers, preaches one and the same B only-begotten God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, recognized in two substances, that of God and the Father, and that of the Virgin Mother. They, on the contrary, not confessing this, either deny the generation of the only-begotten Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ from God the Father, or from the holy, glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary; for if Christ does not have these substances, he is, according to them, far from even being the Son. But if, pressured by us C through divine Scripture and the doctrine of the Fathers, they confess with us that Christ is truly the Son of God and the Father, and also the same being truly the Son of the Virgin Mother, they must of necessity confess, just as there are two generations of one and the same person, so also that he has two substances. For if, as the Fathers teach, neither has the nature of Christ's divinity been changed into the nature of his flesh, nor the nature of the flesh into the nature of the divinity, nor has the difference of the natures been removed through the D union, but each has remained what it is by nature, and the preaching concerning him is twofold, and he is recognized in both substances—that is, in divinity and humanity—how do they not perceive their own error, those who invent a single nature for Christ, and while blasphemously denying the things that are true in reality, grant to Christ only the bare names of divinity and humanity? But disregarding all sound doctrine, they fix their mind on that one thing, thinking that nature—that is, substance and form—signifies the same thing as hypostasis and person, which has been the cause of error for all heretics.
And these things concerning this matter have already been sufficiently demonstrated in the discourse written by us to Zoilus, the most blessed archbishop and patriarch of Alexandria, [P. 533] C where we established that nature and form signify the same thing and are taken in a common sense. But person and hypostasis are spoken of in regard to individuals. Nevertheless, here too we shall establish the same thing through other testimonies of the holy Fathers. These things, therefore, we have said, showing that substance, nature, and form signify the same thing. But that substance and hypostasis are not the same thing, as the erring heretics claim, one can learn from the theology concerning the holy Trinity itself; for when we say God, we signify the one substance of the holy Trinity; but when we say Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, then we signify the three hypostases or three persons.
that is, the three persons known in the one nature of the Godhead. For so the divine voice teaches us, saying: "Let us make man in our image and likeness." The expression "let us make" is not significant of one person, according to the madness of Sabellius; for spoken in the plural, it is indicative of the holy Trinity. And "in our image" signifies the one substance of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; for he did not say "in our images," lest we should suspect different substances in the Trinity, according to the madness of Arius; but "in our image," that he might show the holy Trinity to be one substance and consubstantial. But in saying "in our image" for man, he signified the rational nature of humanity, according to which we are an image of God; for he did not say, "Let us make this one," lest a person should be understood, but he said, "Let us make man," so that the rational nature of humanity B might be revealed; and when he wished to present the hypostases, he then called them male and female, Adam and Eve, which is to say persons or hypostases.
Who, indeed, would not marvel at the absurdity of the heretics, who assert a union and sometimes confess the difference of the natures in Christ, yet deny the number which follows from the diversity of the things united? They are manifestly sick in this with the madness of Apollinarius; for the same Apollinarius says in the reasonings he wrote: "Different properties joined into one become a medium, as in a mule the property of ass and horse, and in a blue color the property of white and black, C and in the spring season the property of winter and summer is seen. No medium, however, has both qualities completely, but partially mingled. The medium of God and men in Christ, therefore, is neither fully man nor fully God, but a mixture of God and man." Then again, in his tract entitled *Christ, God Incarnate*, conducting a dialogue by question and answer, after having been asked: "What then? Is not Christ both God and man? Or do you say that Christ is God, denying that he is also man?" he says: "Not in two substances, but in one." We have related these things to show that the Acephali, following the impious dogmas of Apollinarius, do not confess that Christ is and is known in two natures, but in one; D although our holy Fathers, concerning the ineffable union of the divinity and humanity of Christ, do not hand down one nature, but teach us to confess the number of the united natures.
It remains clear, therefore, that the heretics deny the number of the things joined, subvert the very union, and call Christ God and man to deceive the simpler folk; for if they truly said that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, it would be evident that they would also confess that two natures are preserved in him. But not confessing the number of those joined, they are shown by no means to be confessing anything perfect...
for this is what their master of error, Apollinarius, wrote in his treatise *On the Divine Incarnation*, saying: "For if perfect God were joined to a perfect man, they would be two; but the imperfect, when joined to the perfect, is not seen in a duality." A From what has been said, therefore, it is clearly established that wherever a union of different things is understood, there the number of those joined is also fully acknowledged. But the enemies of the truth, always adding worse things to their own impiety, not only sin against the economy of the one of the holy Trinity, but also blaspheme against the consubstantial Trinity itself.
For Severus has dared to say even this: that the Trisagion hymn is referred to the Son alone, with neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit participating in the doxology. B But this is nothing other than, in accordance with the madness of Arius, to separate the Son from the substance of the Father and the Holy Spirit and to introduce Him as of a foreign substance; or, if not this, then according to the blasphemy of Nestorius, to refuse to confess that Christ is God and one of the holy Trinity, but—in accordance with their own foolishness—to offer up such a hymn to some fourth person; and while they think they are honoring the Son, they unknowingly insult Him, in that they do not worship Him together with the Father and the Holy Spirit in one act of adoration. By saying these things, they do not even know how to be consistent with themselves; for when the hymn is said three times, we direct glory immediately to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. C But what shall we say? Do they not believe themselves? For the Seraphim do not cease, with the voice of the Trisagion, to offer the doxology to the holy Trinity, according to what the holy Fathers have handed down to us regarding this.
B D These things, therefore, the Fathers, having set forth for the overthrowing of the blasphemy of the heretics, have handed down the true confession of the Church, teaching us to confess one Godhead, one power, and one substance of the holy Trinity, and to offer the same doxology and adoration to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; and to confess one person from the holy and consubstantial Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the same one consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, and the same one consubstantial with us according to his humanity; and that he is not, however, consubstantial with the Father according to the same substance by which he is consubstantial with us, nor consubstantial with us according to the same substance as with the Father; for it is impossible for one substance or nature to be consubstantial with both God and men; but in one hypostasis two natures are recognized, of which one is common D with the Father, and the other with us. And so that you may clearly know the confession which we hold in following the catholic and apostolic Church, we shall set it forth briefly in chapters, making it clear to you and, through you, to those who are about to embrace the monastic life in Alexandria and its surroundings.
A I. If anyone does not confess the one substance of the Holy Trinity, that is, the nature and divinity, to be worshipped in three hypostases or persons, that is, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema.
II. If anyone says that God the Word or the Holy Spirit is a creature, or of a different substance than the Father, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone says that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, positing one person with many names, and one hypostasis invoked under three appellations, such a man we place in the lot of the Jews and anathematize.
IV. If anyone does not confess that there are two births of the one person of the only-begotten Son of God and our Lord Jesus Christ—the one from eternity from the Father according to divinity, and the other, which occurred in the last of the days, from the holy Virgin and Mother of God Mary according to humanity—and that he himself is one of the Holy Trinity, that is, one hypostasis from the three hypostases, let him be anathema.
V. If anyone does not confess the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary to be the Mother of God, let him be anathema.
B VI. If anyone introduces two sons, one from God and the Father, and another from the Mother, or says that Jesus was inspired as a man, and that the glory of the Only-Begotten encompassed him as if he were another distinct from him, just as Paul of Samosata and Nestorius blaspheme, but does not confess that the one and same person is the only-begotten Son, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, let such a one be anathematized by all Christians.
VII. If anyone says that he passed through the Virgin as if through a conduit, but was not formed in her in a divine and at the same time human manner—divine, because it was without a man; human, because it was by the law of pregnancy—let him likewise be accursed.
VIII. If anyone assigns the words which are read in the evangelical books, or those spoken by the saints C concerning Christ, or by himself concerning himself, to two persons or hypostases, let him be anathema.
IX. If anyone does not confess that the divinity of Christ is one hypostasis or one person, let him be anathema.
X. If anyone has said that the Only-Begotten had two natures before the union, but has devised one nature of his divinity and flesh after the union, let him be anathema.
XI. If anyone does not confess that the two natures of divinity and humanity have concurred into one hypostasis, and that one Christ has been made perfect, and that he is recognized in both natures as unconfused and indivisible—according to which we confess the same to be perfect in humanity, and believe the miracles and the sufferings to be those of one and the same—let him be anathema.
These are things which we have been taught by divine Scripture; these are the dogmas D of the catholic Church; these are the traditions of the Fathers, of those who at various times have excelled in the holy Church of God, and of those in the holy...
distinguished in the holy Church of God, and those gathered in the four holy councils—the three hundred and eighteen in Nicaea, the one hundred and fifty in Constantinople, the two A hundred gathered at the first session in Ephesus, and the six hundred and thirty in Chalcedon—who, being the norm of the Church of God, with the help of the Holy Spirit, cast out from the Church at various times the heretics appearing and their impious dogmas. But the enemies of piety, possessing the devil’s seed of tares, and not wishing to follow the good seeds, but always feigning excuses and despising all arguments, take refuge in saying that they have a doctrine handed down by the Fathers and that they cannot abandon it, while they have as fathers, some from Nestorius, Paul, Photinus, Marcellus, and those who held the same opinions as them; the Acephali, however, [have as fathers] Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timotheus Aelurus, and those who held the same opinions as B them; while others are known to be followers of the madness of Apollinaris, Manichæus, and Valentinus. Those, therefore, who say these things—how will they lead Jews and Greeks to Christianity, when they bring forward things similar to these and assert that they hold wickedness not only handed down by the Fathers, but even much older than them? Whence we exhort your God-loved self to adjure everyone who fears the Lord and awaits the judgment of God, not to be led astray by various and strange doctrines, but, being taught the true and immaculate faith, to hasten to the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God, in which the same apostolic doctrine is preached by the priests of God throughout the C whole world.
OF JUSTINIAN THE MOST PIOUS EMPEROR, FROM THE DOGMATIC EPISTLE TO ZOILUS, THE MOST HOLY PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA
There is, therefore, one Christ, the difference of the natures not being removed by the ineffable union, the Word believed and the man seen; for the union neither brought about confusion, nor does the difference of the substances in Him admit of fission or division. The miracles D