On the Sects

[Not having received a previous page of translation, I provide the translation of the current page as the commencement of the work.]

THE WORKS OF LEONTIUS THE MONK OF BYZANTIUM

HITHERTO EXTANT

COLLECTED, EDITED, AND ILLUSTRATED WITH NOTES

SCHOLIA OF LEONTIUS THE SCHOLASTIC OF BYZANTIUM

FROM THE MOUTH OF THEODORE, THE MOST DEVOUT ABBOT AND MOST WISE PHILOSOPHER, WHO STUDIED BOTH DIVINE AND SECULAR LITERATURE.

SCHOLIA OF LEONTIUS THE ADVOCATE OF BYZANTIUM

FROM THE MOUTH OF THEODORE, THE MOST RELIGIOUS ABBOT AND MOST LEARNED PHILOSOPHER, WELL-VERSED IN DIVINE AND EXTERNAL LETTERS, RECORDED.

ACT I

^A I. Since we are about to speak of heresies, it is necessary that we first treat of four things in the usage of the Fathers. These are: essence (ousia), nature (physis), hypostasis, and person (prosopon). We must know, then, that for them, essence and nature are the same; and likewise, hypostasis and person are the same. For them, essence, or nature, is what the philosophers call species. And species is that which is predicated of many things differing in number. By hypostasis, or person, they mean what the philosophers call "individual essence"—and we have rightly added "individual essence." For ecclesiastical writers do not call the individuals of accidents a person or a hypostasis. With these things thus premised, our faith is this: that there is one divinity, existing in three hypostases. And one hypostasis is that of the Father, and one that of the Son,

and one that of the Holy Spirit. These three do not differ from one another, except only according to their properties: in that one is Father, another Son, and another the Holy Spirit. For the essence of the three is one, and their power ^B is one, and their will is one. They differ only in this, that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from Him. But as to how the Son is begotten of Him, or how the Holy Spirit proceeds, one should not investigate too curiously. It must be understood that we should not conceive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a human manner. For Holy Scripture has used these names simply, so that it might teach and speak about them as it was permitted, and as we were able to hear. This, then, is the holy Trinity, one divinity, which from nothingness at all made all things, both visible and invisible. Whether the invisible things were made first, we shall learn hereafter.

^C II. It must be understood that God created the universe in six days, created man on the last day, and placed him, once created, in paradise. What paradise is, we shall learn hereafter. From a portion of man’s rib taken by God, He created woman, to whom the name Eve was given by Adam. God prescribed a commandment for them, saying that if they kept it, they would be saved, but if not, they would die. Because they did not keep it, they were cast out of paradise, and God cursed the human race at the same time. After they were cast out, Adam had relations with Eve, and three sons were born to them: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Once these were born, the human race began to increase and to offend the Lord; and He, moved to anger, sent the flood upon them, from which only Noah was saved, with his wife, his three sons, and their wives—eight persons in all. These being saved, the human race grew again, and they began once more to worship idols. ^D Then God looked upon Abraham, a Chaldean man, dwelling in the land of Mesopotamia, and said to him, calling him: "Depart from your kindred and from your country, and come into the land that I will show you." Having departed from there, God showed him the land of Canaan, that is, Palestine, saying to him: "I will make you the heir of this." Abraham therefore begat Isaac in that land, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat the children, of whom one was Judah. These were the twelve patriarchs; and they were called patriarchs because the twelve tribes were named after them. They were called Israelites, and Hebrews, and Jews; the first of these names they obtained from Jacob, to whom God once said: "You shall not be called Jacob, but Israel," which is to say, "a mind seeing God." So from Jacob, to whom the surname Israel was given, they were called Israelites; Hebrews, from Heber, the forefather of Abraham; and finally, they were called Jews, though not all of them properly, but those who drew their origin from the tribe of Judah; nevertheless, this name was also attributed to others abusively, for the reason that kings were raised up from that tribe.

^A III. In the number of these was Joseph, whom his other brothers persecuted with a certain emulation, until they finally sold him to some men who were traveling into Egypt. Having been brought into Egypt, he began to be in favor before Pharaoh the king and those there; and a famine having occurred in Palestine, Jacob, with his sons and the sons of his sons, numbering in all 75 souls, came into Egypt, having heard that there was a great abundance of grain; and having been recognized by Joseph, they remained there. But after Jacob and Joseph had died there, the Israelites were afflicted by the Egyptians. And then God remembered the covenant which He had sworn to Abraham. And He led them out of Egypt through Moses the prophet, being 600,000 [men], without counting children and women. They remained in the desert for 40 years, at which time God also gave them the law through Moses; yet they were doing all things contrary to the law, as the Scripture says. And after 40 years they went out from the desert into the land of promise, Moses having departed from human affairs. Having come into this land, not even then were they converted, although many prophets appeared and kept admonishing and instructing them in many things; but they remained the same. And then the Son and Word of God, having dwelt for our sake in the Theotokos, having put on an ensouled, intelligent, rational, and, to speak simply, human body, was united to the human body, without confusion, truly, and indivisibly: truly, because one hypostasis was brought to completion from God the Word and the human body; ^B without confusion, because after the union the united things were preserved, with none of the things pertaining to substance having been changed; indivisibly, because their hypostasis is one. We are convinced of all these things from the Holy Scripture. For it speaks of one and the same as if actions were proceeding from different natures, sometimes that of God, sometimes that of man. For He endured all things that it is necessary for a man to endure: for He was born, and was suckled, and was reared, and grew, and having reached 30 years, He was baptized, and after the baptism He began to perform signs and to teach the Jews; and in the 33rd year He was crucified, and having been crucified, He rose on the third day, and was taken up into the heavens with the body, and now sits with it at the right hand of the Father, and He is the one who is to judge the living and the dead in the resurrection. This is the faith of Christians.

These things therefore being so, in this present discussion of the four sects let us make mention; of which two ^C indeed concern theology, fighting against each other from opposite directions. For Sabellius said there is one nature of the holy Trinity, and one hypostasis with many names. But Arius said there are three hypostases, and three natures of a different kind. For he said the Father was first, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit were His creations, having been made by Him for the service of the things to be created by Him. These being thus in conflict with each other ^D

^A regarding the manner of things created, the Church, moving on a middle path, does not, as Sabellius, so hand down one nature that one hypostasis is also posited, nor, as in the opinion of Arius, are three hypostases posited in such a way that three natures are also established (for Sabellius, led into error by the unity of nature, also handed down one hypostasis; while Arius, because of the three hypostases, said there were also three natures). Moving, therefore, on a middle path between these, the Church says there is one nature of God in three hypostases. And this is unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.

Then, similarly, Nestorius and Eutyches fought with each other as if from opposite poles regarding the incarnation of God the Word. For Nestorius indeed confessed two natures, but he did not say that a union of them had occurred; he said that the affection of that human [Jesus] toward the Son was great, so much so that through him He might accomplish whatever He wished; and for this reason he said that this human was also called Son. And if anyone were to object to him: "Why do you say there is one Son, and not two?" Nestorius would have answered that the love and affection of God the Word toward that human was so great that, being two, they were called one Son. Eutyches, on the other hand, posited one hypostasis, and said the union of God the Word with the human was so close that even one nature was produced from the two. ^B Again, the Church, moving on a middle path between these, neither says there are two natures as Nestorius does, such that she does not even state that a union occurred, nor does she say such a union has occurred as Eutyches does, so as to speak of one nature. For Nestorius, because there are two natures, said no union had occurred; while Eutyches, because of the union, said there was one nature. But the Church professes one hypostasis in two natures. And this dogma regarding the incarnation is the inverse of that regarding theology, as the divine Gregory says: For there we attribute unity to the nature, and difference to the hypostases; but here, on the contrary, we attribute unity to the hypostasis, and difference to the natures. And let this suffice for the present.

In this second Action, what the sacred books of both Testaments comprise is declared in few words, but clearly. The heresies of the Hebrews and the Samaritans are explained and refuted.

ACTIO II

^D It follows, after those things already premised, that we should treat briefly of certain sects. They are 84 in number, which Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus, enumerates. Before we touch upon them, however, let us review the books received by the Church. Therefore, of the ecclesiastical books, some are of the Old Scripture, others of the New. We call Old Scripture that which was committed to writing before the advent of Christ; New, that which was after His advent. The books of the Old are 22; some are historical, some prophetic, some contain precepts, and others are made for singing. And if one is found here or there in another, they are nevertheless named individually according to what is most prominent. The historical books are 12. The first is Genesis, which recounts the events from the creation

^A, this book contains [the history] from the creation of the heavens and the earth down to the death of Joseph. The second is Exodus; it also contains the account from the death of Joseph and the departure of the Israelites, down to the time they reached Mount Sinai. These matters are: how they crossed the Red Sea, what happened in the interim, and how they received the law from God through Moses. The third book is the one called Numbers, in which the tribes of the Israelites and their leaders are enumerated. The fourth is Leviticus, in which it is commanded with what rite the priests ought to serve God; hence it was called Leviticus, for the priests were created from the tribe of the Levites. The fifth is Deuteronomy, in which, as if in a synopsis, it narrates the events from the Exodus down to Mount Sinai, and in that same place, it sets forth the law more broadly, whence it was called Deuteronomy (Second Law). For what is briefly written about the law in Exodus is handed down more fully in Deuteronomy, along with other things. These five books are testified by all to be Moses’, for as for those that follow, no one knows whose they are. These are called the Pentateuch. ^B The sixth book after Deuteronomy is Joshua the Son of Nun, in which it is told how Joshua, who had been a disciple of Moses and held power equal to his after him, led the Israelites out of the desert into the land of promise. The seventh is that called Judges; for when the Israelites had come into the land of promise, they appointed judges for themselves to administer justice to the people, for they had no kings, calling only God their king. Since, therefore, this book narrates all that the judges did up to the time of the kings, it was for this reason called Judges. The eighth book is Ruth; it is so called because it recounts how Ruth, a woman by birth a Moabite, came over to the Israelites. She was the wife of the ancestor of David. After these are two books that contain the history of the kingdoms, for there are four books of the kingdoms, contained within two volumes. ^C The kingdom of the Jews had this origin. Samuel, the last of the judges, was a prophet and a great man who ruled the Israelite people with the authority of a judge with the utmost justice. He had two sons who, when Samuel had become enfeebled by old age, were declared judges; they did not imitate their father’s justice and equity in administering the law, but by taking bribes, they betrayed judicial cases. Therefore, the people of Israel gathered in this old age of Samuel and asked him to designate a king for them. He, having prayed to God concerning this, received the response that he was commanded to appoint a king for them. "For," says God, "they have not rejected you by asking for a king, but rather Me." ^D Samuel, having received God's response, gave them Saul as king, a man from the tribe of Benjamin; he, having ruled for forty years, did not keep the commandments of God. And then God, in his place, made David of the tribe of Judah king. And from that time, the tribe of Judah remained in possession of the kingdom,

^A parents succeeding to the power, until Nebuchadnezzar came with his forces and led Jerusalem into captivity, when it was taken. The nineteenth book, therefore, contains the Kingdoms. The eleventh is Paralipomena; it finds this name from the fact that it pursues by commemoration those things which the authors of the books of Kingdoms had omitted. The twelfth among the historical books is Ezra, in which are set forth the events that occurred after the captivity of the Jews, up to their return from the land of Assyria, which happened during the reign of Cyrus. And these are indeed the historical books.

IV. There are five prophetic books: the first is Isaiah; the second, Jeremiah; the third, Ezekiel; the fourth, Daniel; the fifth is called the Twelve-Prophet book, in which the prophecy of the twelve prophets is contained. There are four books of instruction. The first of these is Job, which some have thought to be a work written by Josephus; the second is the Proverbs of Solomon; the third is Ecclesiastes, or The Preacher; the fourth is the Song of Songs. I say that the Song of Songs is placed here in order immediately after the books of instruction because the contemplation of these matters is more sublime. These three books, indeed, are Solomon’s. The Psalter follows. You have twenty-two books of the Old Scripture. There are six books of the New, of which two contain the four evangelists: for the one has Matthew and Mark, and the other, Luke and John; the third is the Acts of the Apostles; the fourth, the Catholic Epistles, seven in number: the first is James; the second and third, Peter’s; the fourth, fifth, and sixth, John’s; and the seventh, Jude’s. ^C They are called "Catholic" or "General" because they were not written to one nation, as Paul's were, but generally to all. The fifth book is the fourteen epistles of Saint Paul. The sixth is the Revelation of Saint John. These are the books held as canonical in the Church, both old and new; and all the old ones the Hebrews accept.

V. Since these things are so, it will be worth the effort to set forth first the dogmas of the Hebrews, and first those which pertain to the doctrine about God. The Hebrews, therefore, speak of one hypostasis (or person) and one nature of God; they admit no Trinity at all, and they do not speak of either Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, unless, they say, we might call God "Father" in the sense that He is the father of all men. They prove that there is one hypostasis of God from the fact that Moses said: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one" (Deut. vi, 4). We, however, answer them that this was said by Moses with respect to the substance, not the hypostases; for we also say there is one God, in three hypostases. And that there is a Trinity can be shown by many arguments. First, from the words of God, saying in Genesis: "Let us make man" (Gen. i, 26). For He would not have spoken in the plural, "Let us make," unless others were also sharing in the power with Him. Second,

^A from the things which he again brings forward in Genesis: "Behold, Adam is become as one of us" (Gen. iii, 22). It can be proven, therefore, by many things that there is a holy Trinity. But let us proceed further, and let us show how they think concerning the incarnation of Christ. Since, therefore, three things are usually called into question concerning Christ—whether He is coming, whether He has already come, and third, whether He who came is God—concerning the first, whether He is coming, there is no need to speak, for they themselves admit that He will come. Concerning the other two, it is necessary to show that they speak incorrectly. For when we say that He has come, and demonstrate this very thing by many arguments—first from the signs which He performed, then from the fact that idols were removed from their midst by Him (for Isaiah says: "Behold, the Lord sitteth upon a light cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt shall be shaken at His presence" [Isa. xix, 1]), and third, from the words ^B of Daniel the prophet (for those seventy weeks of years, which the angel speaks of to him, end in the times of Christ from the time they were to begin). The beginning of the calculation is from the twenty-fourth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.

VI. Nobis igitur hæc eis ostendentibus, ipsi non venisse Christum affirmant. While we are showing these things to them, they insist, saying that He has not come. For the Psalm says, they claim: "In his days shall righteousness spring up, and abundance of peace" (Ps. lxxi, 7), and they bring forward other such things from the holy Scriptures. Now, they say, we see none of these things; but on the contrary, we see injustice having multiplied and many sins being committed. We reply to this that the coming of Christ is twofold: one indeed with majesty, ^C of which Daniel speaks, saying: "I was looking in the night vision, and behold, one like the Son of man was coming with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days, and to Him was given the kingdom, and honor, and power; and all nations shall serve Him" (Dan. vii, 13, 14), and so forth. The other is with humility, of which Isaiah speaks: "And we saw Him, and He had no form, nor beauty; but His form was dishonored, and failing beyond all men" (Isa. liii, 2, 3). When, therefore, the Psalm said that "righteousness shall spring up in His days," it says this with respect to the glorious coming that will be one day. For that it was necessarily going to happen that sins would be committed at the first coming of Christ is evident from this. For I ask the Hebrews: Will that Christ who is to come die by His own hand, or will others kill Him? ^D They answer, of course, that He will be killed by others. What then? Will he who kills such and so great a man not sin grievously? Assuredly they will say that he will sin. If, therefore, this is conceded, it is altogether necessary that sins should happen at the first coming of Christ; and so that saying of the Psalm must be understood of the second coming; especially since the Psalm also says elsewhere: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Ps. cix, 1). For it indicates that Christ had enemies. But where there is enmity, there is no peace. Finally, that Christ is not God—which is the third point inquired into—from those

words of Moses: *A prophet shall the Lord God raise up for you from among your brethren, like unto me* (Deut. xviii, 15). Behold, they say, he did not call Him God, but a prophet. We, however, answer this by saying that Christ was everything; for He was man, and prophet, and God, and from whatever aspect one viewed Him, it was permissible to refer to Him by that name. Since He was God, once it has been ^A demonstrated whether He has come, it would be easy to prove this from the New Testament. Nevertheless, we shall prove this from the Old Testament as well. For Jeremiah says it somewhere clearly: *This is our God; no other shall be compared to Him. He has found out every way of knowledge, and has given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel the beloved by Him* (Baruch iii, 36-38). *According to these things He appeared on earth and lived among men.* ^B Such, then, are the dogmas of the Hebrews and their refutations.

VII. Now let us pass on to the dogmas of the Samaritans.

Israelites, having obtained the name from the greater part; but the remaining two, Jews. The ten tribes, therefore, having set over them Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, waged constant wars against the Jews. And because there was a law that the Hebrews should worship annually at Jerusalem before the Ark, Jeroboam, fearing lest they frequently journeying thither might desert, made two golden calves and said to them: "These are the gods who brought you out of Egypt; worship these." And so the Israelites, as well as the Jews, from the time of Jeroboam, practiced idolatry under many kings, until God, being angered, brought upon them the King of the Assyrians, Salmanasar. He led the ten tribes of the Israelites into captivity; for he did not even wage war against the Jews. Having led the Israelites away as captives, he ^B established others in their place to guard the land, and these were called Samaritans, since among the Hebrews "Samaritan" means "guard." As these were dwelling in the lands of the Israelites, lions killed them frequently, until they sent messengers saying to the King of the Assyrians that lions were destroying them, because they did not know how to worship the God of that land. Hearing these things, the king sent one of the captive priests to them, to teach them how it was necessary to worship the God of that land. But he, when he arrived, taught them nothing else, as those who write about outsiders say, except the Pentateuch, for which reason the Samaritans accept that alone. Thus far the Scripture speaks. ^C And from these they say the Samaritans originated; and their sect is as follows. Concerning theology, they believe the same things as the Hebrews; for they profess one hypostasis and one nature. Regarding the incarnation of Christ, they hold this view: they do not believe that He has come, but that He is to come; nor do they believe that He who is coming is God, but a prophet. Moreover, they do not hold that there is an angel, nor an immortal soul, nor a resurrection. For they do not agree with the Hebrews that Christ is to judge the living and the dead. But that angels exist, they are refuted by the Pentateuch; for there it says: "Behold, My angel goes before thy face." And, that "the Angel of the Lord called Hagar." And, that "the Angel of the Lord called Abraham." And, that "the angels entered ^D Sodom," and other such things. And that the soul is mortal, they say, and not immortal, Moses testifies, saying: "You shall not eat blood, but pour it out upon the earth. For the blood of every animal is its soul." We, however, answer this by saying that, first, the blood is not the soul of animals, but because when the blood is poured out the soul also perishes; for this reason his word concerned the blood of cattle, which we also admit are mortal; it did not concern men. And from history...

VIII.

and in death, we prove from history that the soul is immortal and that there will be a judgment of the dead. Cain and Abel were two brothers; one was a tiller of the soil, the other a shepherd. Both offered a sacrifice to God, and God accepted Abel as righteous, but not Cain. Taking this as a cause, Cain conceived a jealousy against Abel and finally killed him. Since the Samaritans say that in this life each one receives recompense for his own actions, what can we say about Abel, to whose righteousness God himself bore witness? For as far as this present life is concerned, he received evil in return for good. ^A From this, therefore, it is manifest that the soul is immortal and that we must believe in a resurrection; for if there were no life remaining in which he might receive the fruit of his actions, such a man would by no means have been unjustly killed. And this is the sect of the Samaritans. It must be known that the King of the Assyrians, Nebuchadnezzar, having come to Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah with his armies, took the Jews into captivity and transported them into Persia; among whom were Ananias, Azarias, Misael, Ezekiel, and Ezra. After seventy years, in the reign of Cyrus, they returned to Jerusalem, Cyrus having granted them their return because they had foretold to him many of the things he was about to do. Ezra described this return; and having come to Jerusalem, and finding that all the books had been burned at the time they were taken captive, it is said that he reproduced the 22 books which we enumerated above from memory. It was fitting to reflect upon these things.

This third Action divides the times that have elapsed from the birth of Christ to the reign of Constantine: the ecclesiastical fathers who flourished throughout that entire interval of time are enumerated.

ACTION III.

^C Since we are to have a discussion about Christian dogmas, it is necessary to establish a certain division of times, so that from this we may know who the teachers were and what the sects were, each of which accepts its own earlier Fathers but rejects the later ones. Therefore, some times precede the birth of Christ, of which we have already made mention above; others follow Christ. The division of these times after Christ is as follows: some pertain to the period from the birth of Christ to the reign of Constantine, others from the beginning of the reign of Constantine to our own memory. Again, the years from the birth of Christ to the reign of Constantine are threefold. For among them, some are counted from the birth of Christ until his ascension; ^D others from the ascension, regarding which the Acts of the Apostles treat; others from the period and death of the apostles until the beginning of the reign of Constantine: regarding which certain ecclesiastical historians have left accounts, Eusebius Pamphili and Theodoret, whose writings we do not necessarily accept. For it has been decreed by the canons of the Fathers that we admit nothing beyond the Acts of the Apostles. But the years from the beginning of the Constantinian reign until our own age are divided thus: some are counted from the empire of Constantine until the beginning of the council assembled at Chalcedon; others from the council assembled at Chalcedon until our own times.

^A But in those times which are counted from the birth of Christ until the reign of Constantine, these teachers and fathers existed: Ignatius the Theophorus, Irenaeus, Justin the philosopher and martyr, Clement and Hippolytus, bishops of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, Methodius bishop of Patara, Gregory the Wonderworker, Peter bishop of Alexandria and martyr. All these are accepted by the heresies which arose after them.

II. Many sects also existed in those same times; but only the famous ones need to be mentioned. ^B First, therefore, arose the sect of the Montanists, concerning which we shall treat elsewhere; then the Manichaeans, which, because it chose for itself the worst from every sect, contains nothing good at all. Nor can anyone speak of it accurately unless he joins himself to their way of life. It abstains neither from the worship of stars nor from any kind of evil. The things in which they trespass wantonly regarding the divinity and regarding the incarnation are these. For concerning the divinity, they imagine that there are two principles and they speak of two gods, one good and one evil. And they assign the better things in the world to the good God, and the darkness to the evil one. ^C Again, in composite animals, they attribute the matter to the evil God and the form to the good God. These people also attribute certain books of the Old Testament to the evil God, such as the one that narrates the departure of the Israelites from Egypt. For they say that it is not of the good God to cast them out of Egypt and subsequently inflict many evils upon them. They also invent certain new books for themselves. Indeed, they mention a Gospel written by Thomas and another by Philip, which we do not acknowledge. And because of these, the holy Fathers specifically set forth which books we ought to receive. Concerning the incarnation, they think thus: they do not confess that the incarnation of Christ truly took place, but only seemingly; and that in the very midst of the tortures, Christ substituted another man for himself and escaped by flight. ^D They sought to establish their opinion of this "seeming" reality on the basis of certain sayings found in the Gospels, from which they say that when he was on the mountain he was transfigured and became invisible. And again, when a great multitude was surrounding him, Jesus slipped away. But this is not sufficient to prove that the incarnation took place only seemingly. For men also have been transfigured and have become invisible. Indeed, Moses was transfigured into an glorious countenance, so that the Jews could not look steadily at him, but he spoke to them with his face veiled. Likewise Phillip, too, became invisible and arrived suddenly from the mountain region to Azotus.

III. Another sect also existed in these times, namely that of Paul of Samosata, who erred both concerning the divinity and concerning the incarnation. For concerning the divinity, he confessed the Father alone; and concerning the incarnation, he said that Christ was merely a man.

^A In this he did not suppose the Word of God to have existed; nor did he hold the same views as Nestorius. For Nestorius, although he said Christ was a mere man, yet confessed that the self-subsistent Word of God and the Son had come to be in that man. For Nestorius did not err concerning the Trinity. But Paul of Samosata did not say that the self-subsistent Word had come to be in Christ, but said the Word was a command and an ordinance; that is, God commanded through that man what He wished, and he acted. Nor did he hold the same opinion concerning the divinity as Sabellius; for Sabellius said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were the same, and called God a being of three names, no longer acknowledging ^B a Trinity. But Paul did not call the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the same, but said the Father was the God who created all things; the Son, that mere man; and the Spirit, that grace which descended upon the apostles. In those times, there arose also the sect of Sabellius, concerning which we have spoken a little before.

IV. Now during those times which are counted from the beginning of the reign of Constantine up to the assembling of the synod of Chalcedon, these doctors and Fathers lived: Silvester, bishop of Rome; Alexander, bishop of Alexandria; Eustathius of Antioch; Athanasius of Alexandria; Julius ^C of Rome; Alexander of Constantinople; Hilary of Poitiers, a city of Gaul; Ambrose of Milan; Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory of Nyssa; Gregory Nazianzen; Amphilochius of Iconium; Antiochus of Ptolemais, in Phoenicia; Gelasius of Caesarea in Palestine; Nectarius, Atticus, John, Proclus, and Flavian, of Constantinople; Severianus of Gabala; Epiphanius of Cyprus; Augustine of the city of Hippo in Africa; Theophilus and Cyril, of Alexandria. All these bishops, therefore, the sects that came after them receive, but those before them do not. ^D There arose, however, immediately in the very reign of Constantine, the heresy of Arius, who erred both concerning the divinity and concerning human nature. Concerning the divinity, because he said that the Son, and likewise the Holy Spirit, were creatures of God; concerning the incarnation, because he said the body of Christ was soulless, for he claimed that the Word took the place of a soul in it. He said this because it helped him in his dogma of the Trinity, as we can show. He proved, furthermore, that the Son and the Holy Spirit were creatures, or handiwork of God, from certain authorities of the Holy Scriptures. For he says, as he claims, that Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." And again, that the Apostle wrote in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Wherefore, holy brethren, con—

Hebrews. "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, who was faithful to Him who made him." And the Lord himself says in the Gospels: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." The holy Fathers refute this, and first, they bring forward authorities contrary to these [sayings]; then, they also heal those passages brought forward by them. Contrary, indeed, is that which John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle says concerning the Son: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his substance." If Christ were a creature, and not begotten of God, he would not be the express image and brightness of God. And the Lord himself says: "I and the Father are one." And thus, by contrary authorities, they refute Arius, but they heal those brought forward by them with this argument: that the Son of God, having deigned to endure all things as a man, did not disdain to call the Father greater than himself. ^B When, therefore, the Apostle calls him a "creature," he does not speak with a view to his divinity, but to his humanity; for as God, he is the begotten of God, not a creature; but as man, he is a creature, and an apostle, and all such things. And it should be known that this is the dogma of our Church, which refutes Arius. For if we do not speak of two natures in Christ, and attribute these humble words to the human [nature], but the others to the divinity, the refutation is not established. For this reason, the Arian dogma held that the body of Christ was inanimate: so that we might not attribute such humble words to Christ as a man, but as the Son of God; and thus, according to his opinion, the Son would be found to be lesser than the Father. ^C But that the body of Christ was endowed with a soul, Christ himself testifies, saying: "My soul is troubled"; and it is proved by many other things. Against this Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, a synod of eminent bishops was gathered at Nicaea under the Emperor Constantine; who both removed him from his office and set forth a Symbol, or formula of doctrine, against him, which is commonly held, and those who desire it may obtain it. In these things the act consists.

ACT IV

In the fourth Action, the heresies of Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Eutyches are uncovered and examined; and Dioscorus, because he favored the heretic Eutyches, is relegated to an island.

ACTIO IV

I. After the sect of Arius, or rather while it was still active (for it lasted a long time), two other sects arose: that of Macedonius, who was bishop of Constantinople, and that of Apollinaris, the presbyter. The heresy of Macedonius was of this kind: he erred concerning the divinity, and was half-partaker in the Arian impiety; for

^A while he called the Son the offspring of God, he declared the Spirit to be a creature. And he fortified his dogma by saying that it was not explicitly stated in the holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God. But he is refuted by many passages. For the holy Scripture does indeed make mention of the Holy Spirit as God. First, in the Acts of the Apostles, the holy Peter says to Ananias: "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart, that you should lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? You have not lied to men but to God." Behold, for he openly called the Holy Spirit God. Then again in the Acts of the Apostles it is said: "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, 'Separate for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'" For He showed by the word "Separate" His own authority, that He speaks as being God Himself. For if He were a creature of God, and sent by Him, He ought to have said, "The Lord has said, Separate for Me Barnabas and Saul." For so the holy Scripture is accustomed to speak, whenever the Lord speaks through some lesser person. The Lord Himself also says in the Gospels: "The Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father," that is, who has originated from the substance of God. For it is patent that the holy Scriptures nowhere use this word concerning a created thing. Again, elsewhere, the Lord says: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But if the Holy Spirit had been a created thing, He ^B would not have been numbered with the uncreated, so as to be worshipped with them and endowed with the same glory.

II. But Apollinaris does not appear to have gone astray regarding the divinity, although the two Gregories prove him to have been entangled in that error as well. For they say that while he does not indeed call Him a creature, he nevertheless assigns a slightly lower rank to the Son and the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father. But in the dispensation of Christ he clearly erred. For he taught that the body which the Word of God put on possessed a soul, but was entirely devoid of a mind, as if it possessed a soul no differently than some irrational animal. ^C He proved this dogma of his, not by any saying of Scripture, but by reasoning. For he said that the mind is something polluted by sin; and it is altogether absurd, he thought, to imagine that the Word of God was united to something contaminated by sin. But we answer that, on the contrary, it should rather be thought that He was united to an object subject to sin precisely because it stood in need of salvation. For He acquired salvation for that to which He was joined. When these dogmas began to be stirred up, the council of Constantinople of 150 men came together, in which there were great men, the two Gregories and Amphilochius. Having gathered together, they removed Macedonius and Apollinaris from their office, and set forth a decree, or formula of the faith, as we are accustomed to say.

ACT IV

^A III. At that time there lived two great men, Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who contended against the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians, and wrote commentaries on the rest of the Scriptures, and died in great honor; nor did anyone while they were living find fault with anything they said; indeed, many wrote encomiums about them. For both Basil and John Chrysostom speak their praises. But later, when the Nestorian doctrine was stirred up, Cyril, who had himself formerly praised them, was forced to write against their works, because Nestorius asserted that his own doctrine was derived from them. For although they wrote commentaries on the holy Scriptures, they did not stop at the proper bounds, but wishing to divide the utterances in the holy Scripture, ^B assigning some to the divinity and others to human nature, they were found to be introducing two hypostases of Christ and a division. And for this reason Cyril was forced to write against them, since Nestorius asserted that his own dogma was based on them. Therefore, while they were alive, no one spoke against them, because the necessity of fighting against the greater heresies covered such doctrines. But a little time after Theodore and Diodorus had died, the heresy of Nestorius arose; and this Nestorius was bishop of Constantinople, while Cyril was of Alexandria, and John was of Antioch.

IV. What the dogma of Nestorius was, we have already stated in what we have said before; but let us now explain it briefly. For he did not claim a union of the Word of God with man, but spoke of two hypostases ^C and a division; whence he did not even call the holy Mary Theotokos, but Christotokos. And if he did call Christ both man and God, it was no longer as we do, but by way of relationship and association. Just as we say of two friends who love one another very much that these two possess one soul, because the same things please them on account of the excess of their friendship. Cyril was opposed to this Nestorius, and wrote to him quite frequently, that he might turn away from this doctrine. He wrote, therefore, a first and a second letter to him, but did not persuade him. Later, he wrote him a third letter, in which he wrote twelve chapters concerning the faith; and he wrote at the end that if he accepted these, he was our fellow-minister and friend, but if not, ^D he should be anathema. But not even thus did he persuade him. And as this conflict was being stirred up, the emperor (who was Theodosius the Younger) commanded that a synod be held at Ephesus, and that John, the bishop of Antioch, be the judge between Cyril and Nestorius. Cyril therefore came to Ephesus on the appointed day with his entire synod. Likewise Nestorius also came with his own synod. But because John delayed coming, and exceeded the appointed time by sixteen days, Cyril, thinking that he would no longer come, having gathered the bishops who were present, and having read before them the writings of Nestorius, and later the passages from the holy Fathers that were contrary to them, Nestorius not having joined...

^A in this, but saying that he was waiting for the judge, he proceeded to his deposition. But after sixteen days John arrived, and finding that the deposition of Nestorius had taken place without him, he was indignant and grieved that the deposition of Nestorius had occurred to his own dishonor without his presence. He did not come to the church into which Cyril had gone; but having gone to another, he fought against Cyril, and they anathematized one another; however, he did not accept Nestorius.

V. Present with John was a certain Theodoret, a learned and eloquent man, bishop of Cyrus, a city of the East. This man, attacking Cyril, also found fault with the twelve chapters which he had written in his third letter to Nestorius, and refuted them, saying that Cyril was an Arian and held the views of Eunomius and Apollinaris. For Cyril, while fighting against Nestorius, who was dividing the dispensation, had made the care of the union his primary concern. Hence, Cyril seemed somehow to Theodoret to be maintaining one nature, after the manner of the Arians and the followers of Apollinaris. Nevertheless, it is not evident that Theodoret ever accepted Nestorius, but only complained about Cyril on account of the dishonor that had come to John. It must be known that there is circulated a letter of John, the bishop of Antioch, written before this synod to Nestorius, refuting his dogma, to which all the bishops belonging to John’s council subscribed. It must also be known that there are ^C some letters of Theodoret and Nestorius in circulation, in which they accept one another; but they are fictitious, and the heretics invent them so that by their means they may attack the synod. But if anyone wishes to know how greatly Theodoret hated Nestorius, let him read the book written by Theodoret himself concerning the sects. Nestorius having therefore been deposed, and these matters having been set in motion, the synod was dissolved, and each departed to his own place. Cyril went to Alexandria, and John to Antioch, and from this there was a struggle between the Egyptians and the Orientals. The Orientals were thought to hold the views of Nestorius, and the Egyptians those of Apollinaris. While this struggle was beginning, the Emperor Theodosius wrote to Cyril to be reconciled with John, and to John to be reconciled with Cyril. John, having received the letters of the Emperor, composed a letter to Cyril containing his confession of faith, and sent it through Paul, the bishop of the city of Emesa. Once this was approved by Cyril, the struggle of the Eastern bishops against the Egyptians was extinguished. And after a little time had passed, the Council of Chalcedon began to be assembled.

VI. Now there were at those times in the Church: Dioscorus as bishop of Alexandria, Flavian of Constantinople, Leo of Rome, and Domnus of Antioch. And there lived in Constantinople a certain man named Eutyches, endowed with the dignity of presbyter and archimandrite, who taught that the body of Christ was not of the same substance as ours after the union; for because of

^A the excess of the union, and because of saying there was one nature, he did not say that the body was of the same substance as us after the union. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, was acquainted with this Eutyches. And having learned this dogma from him, he reported it to Flavian, saying: "You must rebuke Eutyches, who introduces a dogma of this kind, lest our faith be corrupted." Flavian, having heard these things, gathered the bishops of his synod, about thirty in number, and asked Eutyches before them, saying: "Do you confess the body of Christ to be of the same substance as us, or not?" He replied that he had not confessed it until today, but that he confessed it for their sake. This, however, he said in irony. Flavian replied to him: "It is not we who say these things for you to confess, but the Fathers. If, therefore, you confess it, anathematize those who do not think in this way." He said to him: "As I have said, I have not confessed this until today, but for your sake I say it. I do not anathematize anyone; for if I anathematize anyone, I anathematize my fathers and the Holy Scripture. For it is this which says that the body of Christ is not of the same substance as us." Flavian, having heard these things, deposed him from the priesthood and from being an archimandrite, saying that faith does not exist by compulsion.

When he had been deposed, Flavian wrote to Leo, Bishop of Rome, regarding the deposition. And Leo wrote back to him that he had deposed him rightly. Thus this letter is called the Tome of Leo, concerning which those who are called hesitant are in doubt, saying that it was poorly put together. Eutyches, however, after his deposition, went frequently to the emperor, saying that he had been wronged by Flavian. Therefore, the Emperor Theodosius ordered a general council to be held at Ephesus to judge whether Flavian had deposed Eutyches rightly or not. He entrusted the whole judgment to Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria. When the synod had taken place, Dioscorus first did something absurd. For he only read the acts of Flavian, and did not allow him to defend himself against them, or to ask him about matters he thought were in doubt. Second, he did not allow Eutyches' accuser, Eusebius, to come to the judgment; but, passing sentence against Flavian, he deposed him, and received Eutyches, and made him a presbyter and archimandrite again. This having happened, the synod was dissolved. And when Flavian had died, the representatives of the Bishop of Rome (for he himself was never found at a synod, ^B having departed for home) reported to him what had happened. He, having heard, became indignant, and approached Valentinian, the emperor at Rome, in order to obtain vengeance; for in those times, there was one emperor in Rome and one in Byzantium. Valentinian, therefore, being importuned by Pope Leo, writes to Theodosius the Younger ^C to allow a synod to take place, in which to know whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or not. And Theodosius wrote back to him, saying ^D that

I will not make another council; for Dioscorus judged well." But upon the death of Theodosius, Marcian becomes emperor, and immediately orders a universal council to be held at Chalcedon, in order to judge the things performed by the synod at Ephesus, and whether it judged the things done regarding Flavian in Byzantium ^A poorly. This synod having therefore occurred, with 630 men, Dioscorus met with them on the first day. Then, evening having arrived and the assembly having been dismissed, the others gathered, and they sent twice and a third time to Dioscorus, yet he refused to come. When, summoned a third time, he did not come, they removed the man from office according to the canons, and exiled him to Gangra; and they set forth a formulary of how one must believe: that one Christ is to be confessed in two natures, without confusion, without division. And thus the council was dismissed. ^B

(f) In this fifth action, certain not insignificant factions are declared to have arisen among ecclesiastical leaders on account of the Council of Chalcedon; to eradicate these, it was necessary for the authority of the emperor to intervene, which punished the recalcitrant and preserved those who thought rightly. Thereafter, new questions followed regarding the corruptible and incorruptible nature of Christ: hence new tumults in the Church; when these were quieted, new heretics, the Agnoetae, broke out, accusing Christ of ignorance; after the Agnoetae came the Tritheists, bolstering their heresy with the authority of Philoponus, a supreme philosopher.

ACTIO V

I. The Chalcedonian convent being dissolved, and Dioscorus relegated to Gangra, the entire populace of Alexandria and all of Egypt fell away with him. However, Proterius, who accepted the decree of the council, was substituted in his place. ^C No one of the Alexandrians would communicate with him, but they pursued the man with such hatred that, finally, having made a mob, they burned him alive. And the evils that they suffered on account of the murder of this man at the hands of the Emperor Leo cannot even be described at present. Dioscorus having perished in Gangra, Timotheus succeeds him; and Proterius was openly the bishop in Alexandria, while Timotheus was so secretly. But this Timotheus anathematized both the synod, and Eutyches on the one hand, because he would not say that the body of Christ was of the same substance as ours; and the synod of Chalcedon on the other, because it spoke of two natures of Christ. He also defended Dioscorus, saying that as he spoke, so he believed. ^D Proterius having been burned, Timotheus succeeded. And there were two Timothei; one openly, accepting the decree of the synod; the other secretly, accepting Dioscorus. These two having died, Petrus Mongus succeeded in the place of the one who adhered to Dioscorus; and Joannes succeeded the one who approved of the synod.

II. At that time, Zeno held the empire. Seeing that this discord was great, and wishing to effect a union of the Churches, he wrote an epistle, which they called the Henoticon (from union), containing certain things concerning the faith, which the formulary of the faith of Nicaea includes, and certain other intermediary points, which both sides confessed in common; but they were directly regarding the things vs the synod of Chalcedon

though it did not explicitly anathematize it; but these words were written: "If any of those who were present at the Chalcedonian synod, or at others held previously elsewhere, do not think correctly, let him be anathema." When this

Hennōticum

Hennōticum

Hennōticum

Hennōticum

III. Peter was succeeded by Athanasius, who, receiving the document of union, subjected the synod to anathema. But neither did the Acephali communicate with him, because ^C he received Peter. After Athanasius, John became bishop, and then another John, then Dioscorus, and finally Timothy. All these accepted the document of union and anathematized the synod. When Zeno the emperor died, Anastasius succeeded to the empire, at which time the dogma contrary to the synod gained greater strength. For Anastasius was of the number of those who were called "Hesitants"; under him Severus was designated bishop of Antioch, holding the same views as Timothy of Alexandria. When Anastasius departed from human affairs, Justin the Elder obtained the empire, and after a year and a half, Justinian immediately succeeded. ^D When he had obtained the sovereignty, and was a supporter of the synod, Severus, driven by fear, fled to Alexandria, taking with him a certain Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus. After they had arrived there, they resided at the

Ennaton

that he was able ^A to say that the body of Christ is incorruptible, and to introduce a distinction, and yet to attribute one nature to Him.

IV. Thus they did not cease to contend among themselves, and to pursue the matter in books. Timotheus, meanwhile, was championing now this one, now that; but when he was about to approach the emperor, he met the end of his life; for he had been summoned by the prince, who intended either to persuade him to join the synodites or to remove the man from office. There were at that time two men, Gaianus and Theodosius: the former was archdeacon to Timotheus, the latter was a writer of speeches. When Timotheus died, the clergy and the primates of the city chose Theodosius as bishop by their suffrages. When he had been ordained, the populace entered, and having seen him sitting on the throne, they were so indignant (for they hated the man) that immediately someone cast him down from the throne. Whereupon Theodosius fled; and Gaianus, by force, was made bishop in his place. The factions of the inhabitants of the city also followed suit; for the magnates of the city stood with Theodosius, the populace with Gaianus; thus it happened that the whole city was torn asunder not only by the factions of men, but also by their opinions. For Gaianus followed the opinion of Julian, while Theodosius followed the opinion of Severus.

V. Emperor Justinian, having heard what was taking place, sent Narses to inquire which of the two ought to be bishop. ^B Narses, having gone to Alexandria and having inquired who of the two had been made bishop first, and having learned that it was Theodosius, sent Gaianus into exile (and he has remained invisible from that time to this very day), while he established Theodosius upon the throne. A short time having elapsed, Justinian sent and removed Theodosius as well, and brought him to Byzantium, ordaining in his place Paul, who embraced the opinion of the synod. He was later removed on account of his approval of a murder. After Paul was cast out, Zoilus was substituted in his place, who also himself was removed from office, as we shall indicate in what follows. After Zoilus, Apolinaris became bishop; after Apolinaris, John; after John, Eulogius. All these, after Paul, were synodites. And this is the series of the bishops.

VI. When, however, Theodosius was living as a private citizen in Byzantium, the dogma of the Agnoetae (so called from their ignorance of words) was set in motion. ^C For because the Lord says, "But of that day or that hour knows no one, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark XIII, 32), it was asked whether Christ was ignorant of it, as man. Theodosius denied that Christ was ignorant, and wrote against the Agnoetae. Others, however, maintained that He was ignorant, just as we say that He also felt pain. Hence those who are called Agnoetae were separated from the Theodosians; and having established their own church, they communicated separately. While Theodosius was still living in Byzantium, the dogma of the Tritheites was set in motion again, of which Philoponus became the heresiarch. ^D

of whose sect Philoponus was the leader. For since he objected to the Church that, if it said there were two natures in Christ, of necessity it must also confess two hypostases, the Church replied: if nature and hypostasis are the same thing, ^A of necessity one must also confess the individual. But if nature is one thing and hypostasis another, what sort of allotment is this, that while we posit two natures, we must necessarily confess also two hypostases? The heretics answered the Church that, truly, nature and hypostasis are the same thing. Then the Church replied again: If nature and hypostasis are the same thing, then we should also say that there are three natures in the holy Trinity, since it is admittedly allowed that it has three hypostases. When the Church said these things, Philoponus ^B replied that we should allow that there are three natures in the most holy Trinity. He said these things, having taken his opportunity from the Aristotelian writings. For Aristotle says that of individuals there are particular substances, and one common one. Thus, therefore, Philoponus also said that there are three particular substances in the holy Trinity, and one common. These things were to be considered.

Hæc actio sexta reprehendit quosdam qui synodum Chalcedonensem nolebant admittere: eorumdemque rationes et examinantur et refelluntur.

ACTIO VI

I. After the things which we have explained thus far, let us briefly discuss some arguments which all those who hold contrary opinions object to the Church. Let us divide them into three parts, because some of them are historical, taken from the things which were transacted by the council in Chalcedon: ^C some are collected from syllogisms and clever reasoning: and some from authorities. Let us deal first with the historical ones. There are four arguments which we intend to set forth. The first is this, that the council at Chalcedon should not be accepted because the men who were in it were fickle and inconsistent. For these men had both deposed Eutyches in Byzantium, and having gone to Ephesus, they received Eutyches together with Dioscorus, while rejecting Flavian. To this we reply, that firstly one must consider human affairs. For it is evident that elsewhere this has often happened to some holy and approved ^D Fathers. Then, if even as many as five, or thirty, or more of those six hundred and thirty Fathers were found in the council and seemed inconsistent, a synod of such men should not for this reason be rejected. The second argument is to this effect, that this synod held at Chalcedon, as can be understood from its own acts, seems to have said that Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith. Therefore, Dioscorus held the right opinion, and the synod wrongly deposed him. And how are we able to approve of such a synod? It is worth our while, since another absurdity appears to us from this, to say on what grounds this was stated in the synod.

II. It must be known, therefore, that when those six hundred and thirty Fathers were gathered at Chalcedon, and after they had deposed Dioscorus, it seemed good to them afterward to make a definition of faith and a doctrine,

and that no other formula should be composed. Therefore, the leaders of them met separately and pronounced the definition which Asclepiades recited to the synod. This definition contained that expression: *From two natures*. When this had been recited, a great doubt arose among the bishops. The nobles whom the emperor had sent for the purpose of moderating the synod, when they saw the bishops hesitating, spoke to them thus: "Dioscorus has used this expression: *From two natures*; but the most holy Leo has said that Christ is *in two natures*, without change, without confusion, without division. Whom do you follow? Dioscorus, or Leo?" Then all rose up and said: "As Leo believes, so do we; anathema to Dioscorus." ^A When these and other things had been pronounced, as is contained in the acts, Anatolius the patriarch said that Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith, but because he had excommunicated the blessed Leo, and because, being called a third time by the synod, he did not come.

III. Since these things are so, those who are called the Hesitants raise two ^B doubts against the Church. The first is, if this synod said that Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith, why does it reject us? For we believe just as he believed. We respond, however, that if anyone considers the truth, Dioscorus was not cast out on account of the faith, nor was this the cause of his deposition (for he did not even appear before the synod, that he might be judged on this account); but because, having been summoned in truth for the third time, he did not deign to attend. If, however, he had attended, he would have been cast out even on account of the faith. Nevertheless, looking to these things, Anatolius said that Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith. The second doubt is, why did the synod reject the definition which contained that word: *From two natures*; although holy Cyril ^C says *from two natures* up and down? To this we respond, that it was not rejected because it contained those words, *From two natures* (for we admit these, and the Hesitants themselves and Eutyches admit them), but because it was imperfect. For it did not have any refutation of the dogmas of Eutyches, but only embraced that which is commonly approved by both sides. But it is so far from having resisted those words, *From two natures*, that in the second definition, while refuting Eutyches everywhere, it nowhere made mention of this formula of speaking, *From two natures*; as if, forsooth, it admitted it.

IV. The fourth difficulty is (for the second is divided into two), that the synod of Chalcedon received sectarian men, namely Theodoret ^D and Ibas. Of these, Theodoret is the man who contradicted the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, as one approving the opinion of Nestorius; and Ibas was also himself a Nestorian, as the letter written by him to Maris the Persian proves, in which he praises Theodore up and down, by whose authority Nestorius used to confirm his own dogmas. We say, therefore, regarding the dogma of Theodoret, that the synod did not receive him before he had anathematized Nestorius and his opinion. But again they raise a doubt against us, saying: "And why did they not also demand of him that his writings which were against..."

the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril be anathematized?" To this we reply that one should blame not the synod itself but rather the holy Cyril for this. For he, having established communion with the Orientals and with Theodoret himself, did not require him to anathematize his own writings produced against the twelve chapters. If, therefore, the holy Cyril himself did not do this, does the synod deserve to be blamed for not having done it? And yet, even if the holy Cyril did not do it, the synod did, having compelled Theodoret to anathematize Nestorius by word of mouth in the presence of all. ^B

As for what concerns Ibas, we reply that he, too, was not received by the synod before he had anathematized Nestorius and his opinion. But again they raise an objection: "Why did they not demand of him that he anathematize Theodorus? Indeed, they even received his letter to Maris, in which Ibas frequently praises Theodorus." It is certain that this question also should have been addressed to the holy Cyril rather than to the synod. For it is agreed that when some were already seeking that Theodorus be subjected to anathema, Cyril of holy memory wrote to Proclus that Theodorus ought by no means to be anathematized. "For," he says, "all the Orientals have Theodorus as a great teacher, and if we anathematize him, we will cause a great schism in the Church of the Orientals." One of these was Ibas, who would not tolerate his being anathematized. If, therefore, the holy Cyril was preventing it, how was the synod supposed to do it? But even if we grant that these men were openly heretics, they still ought not on that account to have been rejected from the synod. ^C For behold, even the synod at Nicaea received seven heretics, and before that the Arians, even those who persisted in their views afterward. Yet we do not on that account call that synod anything other than the council of the Fathers, [known as the 318]. Likewise, Juvenal, the bishop of Jerusalem, and certain others who were present at the second synod of Ephesus, which they accepted, were also found at Chalcedon.

Things being thus, another difficulty has arisen for us from the times of Justinian. For since Justinian, seeing the doubters loudly acclaiming Theodoret and Ibas, and as if on their account turning away from the synod, anathematized them, they raise a doubt against us: "Why do you anathematize them? Were they either good or evil? If they were good, why do you anathematize them? If they were evil, why did the synod receive them? And if you now yourselves anathematize them as evil, what does this have to do with the council of Chalcedon, which you approve, even though it received them?" To this we reply that Justinian did this by a certain economy. For because he saw, as we said, that the doubters were turning away from the synod because of these men, he thought that if he anathematized them, he would cause the synod to be accepted. ^D He decided, therefore, to anathematize two certain men (even if they ought not to have been anathematized), in order to bring about the union of all. And for this reason he anathematized them; and yet, not even so did the doubters accept the synod.

Philosophic reasons are answered, which the Hesitants brought forward to censure what had been decreed concerning the nature of Christ.

ACTIO VII

^A I. After the exposition of the arguments gathered from the acts themselves, let us pass on to those which they object to us by way of reasoning. The first is this: If you say there are two natures in Christ, they say, you surely also hand down two hypostases. If two hypostases, then also two persons, and two Christs, and two sons; and thus you will be found to hold the same opinions as Nestorius. We dissolve this objection both by pressing back and by opposing. By pressing back: because you object wrongly, and to such a degree that the same absurdity is bound to you also. For if you say that Christ is from two natures, there will undoubtedly be two hypostases, and two persons separately and peculiarly circumscribed; and it will follow from your opinion that the humanity was at some time without the divinity: which is an absurdity, and one which not even you yourselves can sustain or admit. For what you say is "united," this we say is "after the union." If, indeed, you say that the natures that are united are non-hypostatic, we say the same; but if you say they are hypostatic, it is an absurdity indeed to admit it, but we say it nonetheless, since you are the ones who originated this absurdity. ^B But that we may also dissolve the objection by opposing, they bring forward another difficulty, similar to the former, but woven in a different manner; once this is solved, the former will be solved as well. It is of this kind: If you say there are two natures, they say, they are either hypostatic or non-hypostatic. If they are hypostatic, you introduce two persons, and two Christs, and two sons. If they are non-hypostatic, then they are not in the nature of things. But to say that the natures of Christ are not in the nature of things is absurd. Against this objection we fight again by both pressing back and opposing. By pressing back: because you object wrongly. For if you say that Christ is from two natures, these natures are either hypostatic or non-hypostatic. If, indeed, they are hypostatic, you introduce two persons, and two Christs, and two sons. If they are non-hypostatic, you say that Christ is from non-existent natures. ^C II. But that we may not proceed to dissolve an inexplicable matter by another inexplicable one (for there is nothing excellent in that), come, let us in turn, by opposing our own views to them, refute their poorly constructed objection. We must know, therefore, that "hypostatic" or "hypostasis" signifies two things. For it signifies that which simply exists: in which sense we say that even accidents have a hypostasis, although they have their being in other things. It also signifies that which exists separately and by itself, such as individual substances: whence it comes about that "hypostatic" is said of that which is of itself in a twofold way: ^D insofar as it is a certain existing thing, and insofar as it exists separately and by itself, as Peter and Paul. Likewise, "non-hypostatic" is also twofold: for that is called "devoid of hypostasis" which is absolutely non-existent, as a goat-stag or a hippocentaur. Again, "non-hypostatic" is said, not of that which is not, but of that which has its hypostasis in another, and not by itself

such as are accidents. These things being thus established, whenever they ask us, "If you say there are two natures of Christ, do you say they are hypostatic, or non-hypostatic?" we ask them in return, "In what sense do you use the term 'hypostatic' here?" If they say that they mean it concerning that which signifies existence simply, we say that we do speak of the two natures of Christ according to this signification, and no absurdity is thereby inferred for us, such as that we introduce two persons. For it is not regarding this signification of the term that we have taken "hypostasis." But that what is said may be clear, let us change the terms and bring forward the argument syllogistically, and let us say thus: If there are two natures of Christ, it follows that they are hypostatic; but "hypostatic" signifies that which exists. Therefore, the two natures of Christ are among the number ^B of things that exist. But if they say that they use the term "hypostatic" concerning that which exists by itself, we say that according to this, the two natures of Christ are not hypostatic, but non-hypostatic. And no absurdity is inferred for us; for we do not call them non-hypostatic because they do not exist, but because they are of the number of those things which do not exist by themselves. And that what is said may be clear again, let us change the terms and bring forward the argument syllogistically. If there are two natures of Christ, it follows that they are non-hypostatic. But "non-hypostatic" signifies not that which is not, but that which is not by itself. Therefore, the two natures of Christ do not exist by themselves. And thus if we say this, we do not introduce two persons, nor do we ^C speak of them as of things that are not; for we have taken "non-hypostatic" here as that which signifies that which is not by itself, not that which is not at all. That the ecclesiastical custom knows two significations of "hypostasis"—the one signifying that which exists simply—is shown by Saint Cyril. And again, if anyone divides the hypostases in the one Christ, speaking in one way concerning that which exists simply, and in another concerning that which is by itself, we shall know from this that the hypostases have remained unconfused. Whoever, however, attributes the expressions in the Gospels to two persons, or hypostases, let him be anathema. Thus it has been proven that they wish to deceive us by equivocation.

ACTIO VII

III. They bring forward another objection to us of this kind: "If you say two natures, you introduce division; for you introduce number; but number is of discrete quantity." To this it is permitted to reply, what was also said above: that the same absurdity is collected ^D against you. For if you say that Christ is from two natures, since the word "two" introduces number, and number is referred to discrete quantity, you will be reproved for introducing division. But that we may argue philosophically, just as they themselves do, one must know that number is not of just any discrete quantity, but it can be found in continuous things as well.

^A For as we say a five-cubit piece of wood, and as Aristotle says, that time is the number of motion—for he called time a number, being admittedly continuous. Number, therefore, is twofold, being spoken of both in regard to discrete and continuous quantity. But if one must also be precise, we ought not to speak of the "duad" with regard to the continuous number in the case of Christ; for a thing is continuous whose parts a common limit joins. But to conceive of parts in the divinity, so that a common limit might join them to the body, is not even easy to imagine; for "continuous" is spoken of only in regard to magnitudes. Yet in this case, the number must be taken in regard to discrete quantity. For that which is discrete is not necessarily that which is entirely separated, but is also that which is joined and unified, yet retains its own specific definition by which it is distinguished. Just as we call a body both continuous and discrete: continuous, insofar as it possesses dimensions simply; but discrete, insofar as there are three dimensions—even though the dimensions are not scattered apart from one another, but we call them discrete for this reason, because each of them has its own definition.

IV. But because to some it is altogether irksome to hear the name of "discrete," come, leaving aside this solution, which is otherwise good, let us propose another. One must know, therefore, that "one" is spoken of in many ways: for it is said to be one in number, as Socrates; and one in species, as man; and one in genus, as animal. Similarly, "two" are also spoken of in many ways: for they are called two in number, as Socrates and Plato; and two in species, as man and horse; and two in genus, as substance and white. ^C These things being thus established, when we say "two" regarding Christ, we do not say that He is two in number, but one in number and two in species. That we are able to speak in this way, Aristotle himself also makes clear, speaking openly regarding matter and form, that these are indeed one in number, but two in species. And the holy Gregory, speaking of Christ, says: "The composite is one, not by nature, but by union." To this they again raise an objection against us, saying: "By saying 'one' and 'two' of the same thing, you introduce a contradiction, and so it will be found that either what you say is false, or ^D that a contradiction is being affirmed simultaneously." To this we say that it is not true in the same respect, but in a different one; which is not at all absurd.

V. One must know, however, that all these objections are not peculiar to the Hesitants, but they, having stolen them from the Nestorians, propose them to us. For those men, confessing two persons and two Christs, commonly used to object these things to all who spoke of two natures, whether before or after the union: "If you say two natures, you also introduce two persons." Certainly, for this reason that absurdity is gathered against both us and the Hesitants by these objections; whereas nothing of the sort happens to the Nestorians, but their opinion, as far as these things are concerned, is confirmed on the contrary.

^A They bring against us another difficulty, which is peculiar to themselves, but which ends in the dogma of the Nestorians. For since the Church says to them, "If you say that the united things are unconfused, the one passible and the other impassible, the one aspectable and the other inaspectable, the one circumscribed and the other uncircumscribed, the one mortal and the other immortal," and other things of this kind, "you necessarily introduce two natures," they reply in turn that there is no absurdity in confessing that things united are unconfused, while the one is passible and the other impassible, and yet there is one nature in them; and to prove this, they bring forward the example of man. "See," they say, "body and soul are united in man without confusion, the one is aspectable and the other inaspectable, the one mortal and the other immortal," and other such things, "yet we do not say there are two natures, but one nature of man." ^B To these points, the followers of the synod reply in turn, "Just as you say that the realities in man are saved as united after the union has taken place—the one mortal and the other immortal, and all the rest—so we speak concerning Christ; but all these things are signs of two natures."

VI. The Gaianites have nothing to say to these points. For since they confess that the united things are unconfused, they do not endure to mention any difference at all, nor to use the word "two" in any way, but they say that the things united are one single thing after the union. But the Theodosians (or those who are from Severus) have found a certain excuse for themselves and say, "We confess that the parts are diverse, but the result is one. Just as in the case of man, the parts are diverse, namely soul and body, but the result is one." ^C For they wish to adapt the example of man to Christ in all respects; then, perceiving themselves to have fallen into the dogma of the synod, they shift their argument to something else and say, "We call the natures of the parts diverse, but that of the result one." However, the synod spoke regarding the result. To whom we reply: "You lie!" For the synod’s discourse was not about the result, but about the parts—and this is evident from many things. First, it is indicated by the Gaianites themselves. For they, keeping the ancient dogma, fight against the synod now, as if it says there are two parts, whereas they themselves wish for the parts also to be one thing after the union. ^D Perhaps the Theodosians will reply to this that the Gaianites are in no way those who preserve the ancient dogma, but rather they are. But to this we reply again: even if you did not derive that belief from the Gaianites, it is nevertheless necessary that you received it from the Acephali. For they, being manifestly more ancient than the Theodosians and the Gaianites, fight against the synod in this way, as if it teaches two parts. We can demonstrate this also through Eutyches. For against Eutyches that synod directed those words, for the controversy concerned the parts, in that he said the body was not of one substance with us; and therefore, with words directed at him, it too was speaking of the parts, not of the result. Furthermore, unless you admit this,

you will overturn all the previously mentioned objections of yours. For you pose them to us in such a way as if the term "two" could in no way be used after the union unless those who use it are introducing division. But perhaps they also answer us regarding these things, saying: "Let us grant that the council was speaking about the parts. Why then do you now not call the result one nature?" We say to them, first of all, that nowhere do the Fathers appear to say this. Furthermore, if one examines the matter precisely, there is not one nature even of the result, but two. But someone might say: "And how does the example of man not contradict us, who, consisting of soul and body, has one nature, not two, as we say Christ has?" To this we answer that this is the very reason why we say there is one nature of man, but two of Christ. For the same logic that the one nature has in the hypostasis of man, the two have in the hypostasis of Christ. ^B

VII. And in order that what is said by us may be clear, let us repeat the previously mentioned objections. When the Church was saying: "If you say that the things united are unconfused, and that their natures are preserved after the union, and that one is mortal, the other immortal, and other things of this kind, you necessarily introduce two natures," they would answer in turn that there is nothing absurd in saying that things which are united are unconfused, and that their natures are preserved after the union, and in professing one nature. "For behold," they say, "we speak of one nature of man, and yet in him the united parts are unconfused." Pressed at this example as if into a narrow corner, the defenders of the Synod said: "And in the case of man we also speak of two natures." Then the Theodosians: "Therefore, if you speak of two natures of man, it is necessary for us to say that there are three of Christ." Then, in turn, the synodites: "If you force us to say Christ is in three natures, then you also say he is from three natures. For you say he consists of humanity and divinity. But the nature of divinity is one, and of humanity two." It must be noted, however, that from the assertion of the Synod it is indeed gathered that three natures are spoken of, but not from the Theodosians that it is "from three." For they, declaring that Christ consists of humanity and divinity, call the nature of man one; we, however, call it two; so that it is from our doctrine, not theirs, that it is gathered that three natures are spoken of. For we speak of two natures of man, and one of the Word. However, we do not say this simply, but that there is one nature of man, and two of Christ; and whence this is, must be known. We say that there are certain principles in the holy Scriptures which are confessed by all, and which are received equally by both us and them. Let us therefore examine each dogma by these, and whatever we find to be in agreement with the principles, that, obviously, is well-founded. But that which is contrary to them, it is manifest that it must be rejected as ill-founded. It is therefore confessed that Christ was God and man, and that he himself is properly God, and properly man; and that he himself is by nature God, and by nature man; and that he is himself consubstantial with the

Father, and consubstantial with us; and that he is one of the holy Trinity, and one of us; and that God the Word deigned to become man; and many other such things shall we find in the Holy Scriptures.

^A VIII. Let us therefore examine both doctrines in light of these principles; and first that of the one nature. If it should hold well, we shall accept it; but if ill, we shall reject it. Let there, then, be three things posited: souls simply, bodies simply, and perfected humans. And so, taking from these one soul and one body, let us compose a certain human, say, Peter. And even though he might be discovered to have the nature of those, nevertheless he will not be of the same substance with humans. For Peter, [once] perfected, is not of the same nature as souls, nor as bodies; nor is he properly a soul, nor properly a body. For neither can whatever definition of a body or a soul be delivered, the same also be delivered of Peter; but he is of the same substance as humans to some extent (for he does accept their definition), and he is something different both from the soul and the body. ^B Let us come to Christ; for among them, divinity corresponds to the soul, and humanity to the body. Therefore, Christ is not of the same substance with the Father, nor of the same substance with us—just as Peter, too, is not of the same nature as a soul, nor of the same substance as a body. Therefore, Christ is not properly God, nor properly man; nor by nature God, nor by nature man; nor one of the holy Trinity, nor one of us—just as Peter, too, is not one of the souls, nor one of the bodies. But to say such things of Christ is nothing other than to subvert the indubitable principles which we hold, which would be absurd. But truly, if we admit that Christ has two natures, we overturn none of these principles, but find everything to be in accord. ^C For the same one is God and man; and the same one is consubstantial with the Father, and consubstantial with us; properly God, and properly man; by nature God, and by nature man; one of the holy Trinity, and one of us. For the same hypostasis accepts the definitions of the two natures; and whatever definition one might provide for divinity, one finds the same also in the case of Christ; and whatever [definition] one might provide for humanity, one finds the same also in the substance of Christ, as it befits him substantially; so that it is necessary for the one hypostasis of Christ to be of two natures.

IX. But here these Hesitants ask: How is it possible to find two [things] in one individual? We resolve this "how it is possible" by means of that which is alien to opinion. For it is not absurd for something to have happened in Christ that is outside the opinion of men, but it is absurd to lie and to oppose one’s own principles. One must know, moreover, that for those who maintain one nature in Christ, it is necessarily gathered that they must say either two hypostases of the divinity, or four—and no longer three, as is confessed by all. For if they tell us there is one nature in Christ, from where will they derive for us the three hypostases of the Divinity? For we indeed have one of the Father, and one of the holy Spirit; but the other

^A they will not be able to name, while asserting one nature in Christ. For if there is one nature, it is no longer nature that is God, as has already been demonstrated to us. But if he is not God by nature, how could he be said to possess the hypostasis of divinity? Thus, it follows for them that they must speak of two hypostases. If they should say in this way that the third hypostasis is that of the Word of God—so that one is of the Father, the second of the holy Spirit, and the third of the Word of God—they necessarily introduce four: one of the Father, one of the holy Spirit, one of the Word of God, and one of Christ. It is demonstrated from every side that two natures must be acknowledged, not one.

SESSION VIII

The passages which the hesitant heretics brought forward for the confirmation of their heresy against the two natures of Christ are sincerely explained.

I. It remains for us to discuss those arguments which they put forward to us from the sayings of the holy Fathers. These are partly taken from things which the synod did not say, partly put forward to win credibility for their own dogma, and partly, finally, built upon the very words of the synod. Regarding those things which it did not say, they reproach the synod in three ways: namely, that it did not use the phrase "hypostatic union," nor "one incarnate nature of the Word of God," nor that form of speech, "from two natures." But, they say, that holy Cyril brought forward all these things. It is right, however, to explain why he spoke of a hypostatic union. There is, of course, a double meaning to this. For because Nestorius said that the union of the Word of God with flesh had been made through a certain affection, and consequently taught that the person of the Word of God and of the flesh was one by reason of a mutual affection, for this reason the holy man Cyril, contradicting him, said that the union was made hypostatically, that is, by reason of subsistence, and thus a union of the things themselves, not in respect of affection. And it should be noted here again that "hypostasis" is spoken of those things which exist simply. The second meaning is that he said the hypostatic union had come to pass, that is, in one hypostasis. Both meanings are contrary to Nestorius, although the first is the more true. They object, therefore, that the synod rejected these things handed down by holy Cyril, and made no mention of them. But we overturn all these things with one word: the synod omitted them as things which were common and confessed; for it was arguing against Eutyches, who, battling against Nestorius from the opposite direction, clearly confessed these things as well. It is not necessary, however, that things which are confessed should always be set down; but it is permitted sometimes to omit them. The earlier synods show this sufficiently, which omitted many of the things confessed in many places. Then we discover the synod in many places to have said one hypostasis and one person, which is nothing else to say than a union hypostatically. And these are the things which the synod omitted. ^D Regarding the establishment of faith in their own dogma, they bring forward many authorities, of which the first is that which holy Cyril clearly

^A dixit: "one nature of God the Word incarnate." To this we reply that we acknowledge the holy Cyril to have said this, but this is in no way contrary to the dogma. For he did not say the nature of Christ was incarnate, but "the one nature of God the Word incarnate," signifying the other nature. And that he intends to signify the other nature by saying "incarnate" is manifest from what he explains for himself in his second letter to Succensus, saying: "For if, when we said one nature of God the Word, we had kept silent, not adding 'incarnate,' but had left the dispensation [economy] outside, their argument might perhaps have been plausible when they pretended to ask: Where is the perfection in humanity, or how does the substance we acknowledge subsist? But since the perfection in humanity ^B and the declaration of the substance we acknowledge are included through the word 'incarnate,' let them cease resting upon a reed staff." For those who cast out the dispensation and deny the incarnation would justly be accused of robbing the Son of his perfect humanity. But if I should say that in the mention of his being incarnate there is a clear and unambiguous confession that he became man, nothing further prevents us from thinking that Christ is one and the same, and that he is God and man: as he is perfect in divinity, so also is he perfect in humanity. Most rightly and very prudently, your perfection sets forth the teaching concerning the saving passion, not asserting that the only-begotten Son of God himself ^C — insofar as he is understood and is God — suffered in his own nature the things that befall the body, but rather that he suffered in his earthly nature. For it was necessary, it was indeed necessary, that both be clearly preserved as true in the one Son: both that he does not suffer divinely, and that he is said to suffer humanly; for it was his flesh that suffered.

III. We must know that it was the first among the orthodox, the holy Cyril, who said: "one nature of God the Word incarnate." We say "among the orthodox" because Apollinaris often said this, whence it happened that the holy Cyril was thought by the Orientals to be an Apollinarist, ^D though he was not. Nor is it necessary that everything which heretics say should be entirely rejected; only evil things must be cast out. They also bring forward another text as though proceeding from the blessed Julius, which exists in a letter written to Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, whose beginning is: "I marvel, hearing of certain things." And the text is of this sort: "It is necessary, when they speak of two natures, for them to adore one and not adore the other; and for them to be baptized into the divine, but not to be baptized into the human," and this letter contains many other such things. But we prove by many arguments that this letter is not of the blessed Julius, but of Apollinaris. First, because if anyone considers it carefully, it contains nothing worthy of the name of Julius. Moreover, those seven letters which they say are his, are of Apollinaris. Then, because in the same letter [(the text continues)...]

^A it was a custom for the Fathers of that time, whenever they made mention of the body, to call it "endowed with mind" and "ensouled." And this is so true that, fearing this accusation, they later added "endowed with mind" and "ensouled," and it is impossible to find any book of later writers that does not have this appendix of the ancients. That it is convicted of being from Apollinaris, and not from the blessed Julius himself, is also manifest: for Gregory of Nyssa, in his treatise against Apollinaris, appears to mention many things contained in this letter, and refutes them as being erroneous. ^B It can also be refuted from another source that it is not by the blessed Julius. For they say that it is inserted in the acts of the Synod of Ephesus under the blessed Cyril; but they lie openly. For nothing of the sort is found in the text there, but another letter is inserted, as if written by Julius; yet it is not Julius's, but Timotheus's, as can be learned from many manuscripts. But since it does not oppose us in any way, even if they say it is Julius's, it is not to be worried about.

IV.

V.

blessed Cyril did not produce it against Theodore is also manifest from that. For Theodoret, who defended Theodore, while refuting all the authorities that holy Cyril had brought forward against him from the holy Fathers, makes no mention of this citation anywhere. But they reply to this that Theodoret ^A cunningly omitted it; for since he could not look upon that authority with hostile eyes, as it was very plain and clear, he willingly passed it over. We respond that it is so far from the case that Theodoret wished to pass over it if it had been set down there, that if the blessed Cyril elsewhere had said, "One nature of the Word of God incarnate," had Theodoret known that the expression which exists in Cyril was cited from holy Athanasius, he would by no means have spoken so rashly: "Who among the Fathers, [he would have asked], said 'one nature of the Word of God incarnate'?" ^B In turn, they retort that it is certain he knew Athanasius had spoken thus, as he even added: "Just as the Fathers have spoken." To this we say that each person hastens to show that the Fathers have said what he himself says, if not in the same words, at least with the same force of words. They also bring forward another authority from Erechthius, whose name was never heard among the Fathers, so much so that when Timothy wrote against the synod and cited an authority from Erechthius, Cyrus, who was in the position of presbyter with him, wrote to him saying: "I would have preferred that you correct this, for the name of Erechthius was never heard among the Fathers." These things were worthy of consideration.

Recitation of certain words of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Hesitants ^C thought favored their heresy.

ACT IX

Since, however, they also seize upon certain expressions from the definition of the synod and reproach the synod itself, come, let us set these forth, and having stated how they reproach them, let us subsequently add our refutations. The words of the synod are: "It would suffice indeed for a perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety, this learned and saving symbol of divine grace, which teaches the perfect doctrine ^D of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and presents the incarnation of the Lord to those who faithfully receive it." But the reproach is truly very frigid. In the first place, it is so far from holding the opinions of Nestorius that a certain John, an Aigaiote presbyter and Nestorian, while reproaching the synod, said that this was a Cyrillian synod and stood by the opinion of Cyril. But if it were Nestorian, that John would never have said this. Next, if they reproach the synod because of expressions of this kind, why do they not also reproach the holy Fathers? For they, too, brought forward many such things. For the blessed Cyril says in his commentary on the prophet Zacharias, the beginning of which is, "The holy Zacharias indeed prophesies," as follows: "We must therefore depart from such things, and, as from a foreign land, from the frigid and dead state of the mind, we must move on to Sion, that is to say, to the truth, that we may consider the Church of Christ, in which being established,

^A we shall perceive what is pleasing to God, and we shall look upon the reasonings concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and we shall find Him gathering us together from every place, and spiritually binding us into unanimity. For behold, having said "What is pleasing to God," he adds, "And we shall look upon the reasonings concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity, and we shall find Him gathering us together into Christ." And as far as what they say goes, even the blessed Cyril [by their logic] posits a quaternity. We also find many other similar things among the holy Fathers, which, for the sake of avoiding prolixity, need not be set forth here. Again, they find fault with it, as if it had used that formula of words: "In two natures." But it is easy to show from many sources that the Fathers also used this. ^B

Action X. The error of the Gaianites is detected, against whom it is proven that Christ’s body was corruptible and subject to the same passions, sin excepted. Then the Agnoetae are refuted: finally, the delirious notions of Origen are refuted.

ACTIO X.

After all that has been expounded thus far, it is worth the effort to also set forth a report concerning the opinion of the Gaianites and certain others. The Gaianites, then, confess that God the Word took on human nature from the Virgin, perfectly and truly; but they say that after the union, His body was incorruptible. For they say that He underwent all species of evils; for He hungered, and thirsted, and grew weary; but they say He did not suffer these things in the same manner as we do. For they say that while we are in need of food and drink ^C by a certain natural necessity, Christ endured all these things voluntarily. For, they say, He was not a slave to the laws of nature; otherwise, we would have to confess that these passions happened to Him against His will, which would be absurd. This is the opinion of the Gaianites. We, in response to this, say that we too confess that those passions and affections were voluntary, but we do not for that reason say that Christ suffered them in the same way we do. For we say that He voluntarily submitted to the laws of nature, and willingly allowed the body to suffer its own [passions] in the same way that we suffer. And the Fathers themselves confirm this with their testimony; the holy Gregory says: "He allowed [the body], when He willed, ^D to act according to its nature." And the blessed Cyril says that through the intake of food and excretion, He sustained the substance, that is, of the body. And again from the Dialogue, [where it is proved] that Christ is one, that He allowed His own flesh to follow the laws of its own nature. And again: "So He permits that which was bodily to suffer those things which naturally belong to it, in order to show that He truly and in reality bore flesh, and was made man according to the Scriptures." The holy Athanasius, in his book *Against Apollinarius*, says: "For this reason the Lord said, 'Now My soul is troubled.' And this 'now' signifies that He willed it. Nevertheless, He shows what is real; for He did not name what was not as if it were present, as if those things spoken of came to be only in appearance; for those things are by nature and in truth

^A all things came to pass. Again, in another place: "That even if the things said did not happen through any failure of nature, they happened for the demonstration of his existence."

^B Consequently, if he suffered in the same manner as we do, we cannot say that he was incorruptible, just as we cannot say that our own body is. And we encounter such a difficulty as this: If you say the body of Christ is incorruptible, it is not consubstantial with us, since the body of Christ is incorruptible, but ours is corruptible. But to this they themselves might object: In the same way that you, calling the body of Christ incorruptible after the resurrection, say that it is consubstantial with us, in that same way, when we call it incorruptible before the resurrection, we admit that it is consubstantial with us. But we say that even if we acknowledge it as incorruptible after the resurrection, we do not call it incorruptible by nature, but by grace. And if they should say, "Let it be incorruptible by grace even before the resurrection," we reply that the things that are told concerning Christ do not allow this; for before the resurrection it is said that he hungered and thirsted. And how could that which has suffered these things be incorruptible? But after the resurrection he suffered none of these things; so it is clear that before the resurrection the body was corruptible, and after the resurrection it was incorruptible. For although it is said that he ate after the resurrection, he did this by dispensation, not because he was actually hungry, but to show his disciples that it was he himself who had risen from the dead; in the same way he is said to have shown them the marks of the nails. And yet we are not raised up having any of the sufferings that we experience before the resurrection. But Christ is the first-fruits of ours from the dead. And yet he was found to have them; so it is clear that this was done by dispensation. Indeed, the Scripture does not say that he hungered, but that he ate. ^C It is necessary to observe that they bring forward certain citations from the Fathers saying that the body of Christ was incorruptible, just as they appeal to the blessed Cyril, who said that the flesh of the Word did not receive corruption; but when they bring forward such citations, one must consider that the name "corruption" is equivocal. For corruption is spoken of as the complete dissolution of the body into the elements of which it was composed; and corruption is also spoken of as these human passions, that is, hunger, thirst, and other things of that kind. When, therefore, one of the Fathers says that the body of Christ did not undergo corruption, he means this, that it was not completely dissolved; which is clearly true from what they themselves say to the contrary. For in many places they state that before the resurrection it was corruptible, and after the resurrection it was incorruptible. So much for the Gaianites.

^D The Agnoetae, while confessing all things as the Theodosians do, differ in this, that the Theodosians deny that the humanity of Christ is ignorant, while the others affirm that it is ignorant. For they say that in all things Christ is assimilated to us. And if we are ignorant, then clearly he himself was ignorant as well.

^A he also says in the Gospels, that "No one knows the day, nor the hour, nor the Son, except the Father alone." And again, "Where have you laid Lazarus?" For all these expressions, they say, signify ignorance. But others reply to them that Christ said these things by dispensation, in order to turn the disciples away from seeking to learn from him the hour of the consummation. Indeed, they say, after the resurrection, when he was again asked by them, he no longer said, "nor the Son," but "none of you." We, however, say that one should not inquire too subtly about these things; nor was the synod itself concerned with such a dogma. Yet it must be known that many of the Fathers, indeed almost all of them, appear to say that he was ignorant. For if he is said to be consubstantial with us in all things, and we are ignorant, then clearly he also was ignorant. And Scripture itself says concerning him, that "He advanced in stature and wisdom," ^B clearly learning that which he was ignorant of.

IV. It is fitting also to say something about Origen and his dogmas. Origen, then, was an ancient man, of the number of those who existed before Constantine, and he was held to be great, cultured in the holy Scriptures, and a grammarian. His father became a martyr, and he himself was also led away to face martyrdom. He was compelled to offer sacrifice, however, for the following reason: While he was undergoing martyrdom, they brought before him a certain Ethiopian, and they forced him either to commit an indecent act with the Ethiopian or to offer sacrifice to the gods. Origen chose rather to offer sacrifice to the gods, and taking incense, he cast it upon the sacrifice; but later he repented greatly and lamented over this deed. His opinions were of this sort: he attributed to the Son a lower degree, just as the Arians later defend him, saying that those ancient Fathers were not concerned with subtle definitions. For since the sects had not yet emerged, they used terms more simply; but after they had emerged, each of the Fathers began to guard himself. ^C We, however, say that it was not as one using terms more simply that he taught a lower degree for the Son, but that he actually struggled against this dogma with all his might. For it is plain in a certain letter of his that he contends eagerly about this, saying: "The Son is either greater than the Father, or lesser, or equal." If, therefore, I show that he is neither greater nor equal, it is manifest that he is lesser. Although, therefore, he teaches that the Son holds a lower degree, yet they still strive to excuse him. But he clearly holds this opinion, and has no defense for it.

V. Another point concerns pre-existence and the restoration of all things (apokatastasis). Concerning pre-existence, he taught as follows: that before the ages all minds existed ^D and were indeed all pure, then...

^A both demons, and souls, and angels serve God and perform His commandments. But the devil, being one of them, because he possessed free will, wished to oppose God, and was cast out by God; and all the other powers departed with him. Those who had sinned most gravely became demons; those who had sinned less, angels; those who had sinned still less, archangels; and thus, in order, each received his lot according to his own sin. The souls were those who had not sinned as gravely as to become demons, nor yet so lightly as to become angels. Therefore, He made the present world and bound the soul to the body for the sake of punishment. For God, he says, is no respecter of persons, such that, while all these things are of one nature (for all rational and immortal beings are one), He should make some demons, some souls, and others angels; but it is manifest that, according to the measure of the sin that each committed, He made one a demon, another a soul, and another an angel. For if this were not so, and if souls did not pre-exist, why do we find some of those newly born to be blind, while others are born having no defect; but it is clear that certain sins pre-existed in the souls, from which each receives [a lot] according to merit. ^B

Regarding restitution, he holds this opinion: that there will be a resurrection of the dead and that there will be punishment, but it is not unending. For as the body is punished, the soul is gradually purified, and thus it is restored to its ancient order. He also says that the demons and the angels are restored. But let us refute all these things, and first that of pre-existence. For because he gathers, from the saying that God is no respecter of persons, that He bound souls—being rational and immortal, just as the angels—to bodies, while allowing the others to remain in heaven to live with Himself; it must be known that the term "rational and immortal" is equivocal. For the rational and immortal nature of the angels is one thing, ^C surpassing human nature, and our own is another; since we also call God rational and immortal, yet we do not say He is of our nature. To his statement, "How is it that some are born blind, while others suffer no evil?" we reply that these are the judgments of the Lord and we must not inquire into them. For we, in turn, pose this objection to them: Why is it that, although horses are of one nature, some labor in flour mills, while others live in luxury with the great? Yet they [the Origenists] do not confess that the souls of these things pre-existed. But the Platonists, pressed by this difficulty, said that the souls of brute animals also pre-exist. ^D Regarding their claim that punishment is not unending (for they say that the name of an "age" is taken for a definite time, and when Scripture says that punishment is "everlasting," it refers only to a definite time), it must be known that, in truth, the name of an "age" is used both by those outside and by Scripture