Eulogius, Archbishop of Alexandria

ANNO DOMINI DLXX-DCVIII. SAINT EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. NOTICE.

(Galland, *Biblioth. Patrum*, Vol. XII, p. xiv.)

[...of the] Mother of God of the Justinianists, and finally that he attained the See of Antioch, we learn from Photius (a). He succeeded John I in the episcopate in the year 579, as Lequien argues from the tables of Theophanes and the list of Nicephorus (b). Pagi differs slightly, writing that he was raised to the Alexandrian throne in the year 580 (c). For this reason, neither the opinion of the Bollandists nor that of Sollerius is to be admitted; the former drags back the beginning of the prelacy of Eulogius to the year 576 (d); the latter, however, hands it down as the year 577, and that he died in the year 604 (e). Therefore, the year of the death of Eulogius must be set as 607. For we learn both from the tables of Theophanes and from Nicephorus Callisti (f) that he served in the episcopate for 27 years, in whom we read ἑπτὰ πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσιν, where the translator wrongly renders it twenty-five. Hence, it follows that in the list of Nicephorus, the text must be corrected, i.e., in place of 17, 27 should be rewritten—an error of scribes not entirely infrequent. In the ecclesiastical tables, his memory is celebrated on the 13th of September; in the Menologium of the Greeks, however, on the 13th of February (g).

II. He was a man excelling in piety and learning. John Moschus recounts some things concerning him worthy of note (h): among which, first of all, [is the fact that] when the same Alexandrian prelate had traveled to Constantinople, he had been in the company of the Roman archdeacon, Lord Gregory, a man of the highest and singular character and adorned with every virtue, who affirmed that he had narrated to him that a wondrous history is held written in the Roman Church concerning the epistle of Saint Pope Leo to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, which was amended by the hand of Blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles. Concerning this same epistle of that holy pontiff, which Eulogius received and praised, another wondrous thing is narrated in the Menologium of the Greeks (i). Furthermore, our Alexandrian prelate was indeed most dear to Gregory, as can be understood from the Register of his own epistles. The supreme pontiff praises his zeal most of all, whether in opposing or in converting heretics; and he attributes the conversion of the English to his prayers (j). He also calls him an instrument of God, a minister of truth, and a follower of Peter (k).

III. Eulogius committed many things to writing, which, however, have almost all perished, except for a few fragments which Photius preserves in his review (l). Among these, there exist among others seven chapters *On the two natures of our Lord and God and Savior*, among the theological and polemical Opuscula of Saint Maximus the Confessor (m); which we have brought forth from there from the translation of François Combefis. To these chapters, indeed, we have prefixed his *Oration on the Feast Day of Palms*, translated by the same Combefis (n), who described it from a Royal Parisian codex and illustrated it with notes. It had indeed been published long ago from an Oxford codex and attributed to Cyril of Alexandria, to whom it is also ascribed in codex 285 of the Bibliothèque Coisliniane (o): "But with the style itself resisting," says the praised Combefis (p), "as its translator among the works of Cyril had perceived." Thus, in passing, anyone who is more famous because of published writings also draws the writings of others to himself, where there is some great similarity with him.

ST. EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA — NOTITIA

it is appropriate, as it is here in the case of Eulogius and Cyril, bishops of the same see. The entire content persuades us that it belongs to Eulogius, as does that great affinity it bears to other works of this same Eulogius that were excerpted by Photius. Everywhere he fights sharply against the Eutychians, a man clearly worthy of being numbered by Pope Agatho, in his suggestion to the Sixth Synod, among the first and foremost defenders of the Synod of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. The discourse is partly festive, partly polemical. He plays beautifully upon the words and senses of Scripture. Our antiquary had broken off almost in the middle: which for them is a not altogether unusual piece of plagiarism; it has also been detected elsewhere in Amphilochius and Chrysostom.

SECOND NOTITIA

The third volume (τεῦχος τρίτον) of the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eulogius (a)—a work now lost—was distinguished into eleven books, of which the first contained an Apology for the synodical letters sent to the Bishop of Rome (to Gregory the Great) (b), in which he was reproved because he had not acknowledged—even by name—the four ecumenical councils, nor the letter of Leo of Rome, nor had he pronounced anathema against Eutyches, Dioscorus, and Severus; the second, an exposition of the faith; the third, fourth, and fifth, an Apology for the Synod of Chalcedon and for Cyril of Alexandria against the calumnies of the heretics; the sixth, against those who think that true Christian theology can be subjected to human or philosophical conceptions (πρὸς τοὺς οἰομένους ἀνθρωπίναις ἐπινοίαις δύνασθαι τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐσιώδη θεολογίαν); the seventh, addressed to Domitian, Bishop of Melitene (Armenia), concerning the correctness of the statement that "the Word has become flesh" (μία φύσις τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη) (c). The eighth, to a certain Christophorus, giving solutions to certain passages of Holy Scripture; and in the ninth chapter, an *Encomium of the Monastic Life*. The ninth, an exhortation to those who have departed from the Church, they themselves having been divided again into various parties. The tenth, against the Agnoetae monks, which work is praised by Gregory the Great in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria, written in the year 600, book VIII, 42. The eleventh, finally, the Acts of the synod held in the seventh year of Maurice (this is to be read instead of Marcian), in the year of Christ 588, against the Samaritan Dositheans (d), and a certain Dosthenus or Dositheus, an equal to Simon Magus (not, as other Samaritans hold, Joshua, nor our Jesus being the great prophet foretold by Moses in Deut. xviii, 15), and who denied the resurrection of the dead, which doctrine Eulogius confirmed from Mosaic writings.

*Index of writers and heretics mentioned by Eulogius in these books.* *According to the pages of the Hoeschelian Greek edition of Photius.*

Agnoetae, against whom Eulogius writes, 464 seq. Ambrosius: "The wondrous one," in the fourth book *On the Incarnation*, 441, 452; to Albinus, 445. Amphilochius, Bishop of Side, 463. Apollinarius: "The mindless one" (ἄνους), 437, 438, 439, 440, 445, 447, 448. Those who think according to Apollinarius, 451; those who are sick in mind, 552. In the book *On the Incarnation*, 441. Arius, 448. "The madness of the Arians," 466. Athanasius, 438, 449. In the book *On the Incarnation*, 445. Baradatus, 463. Basilius M., 449, 457; he is stung by the Severians: "The innovation of the Cappadocians and the opinion of Athanasius," 448. Basilius, "In the struggle against the Anomoean" (*Libris Contra Eunomium*), 457. Christophorus, to whom Eulogius writes, calling him "most holy" (ὁσιώτατον), 461. Cyrillus Alex., 438, 444, 445, 446, 459, 465, 466. "The teacher," 446, 447, 457, 458. "The warm lover of precision," 441. "Who else is more great-sounding or more trustworthy?" 442. "Abundant in mind, never entrusting his mind to the words and the names, but bringing around and adjusting both the words and the names to the thoughts," 446. "The standard of precision," 452. "The teacher of precision," 454. Epistles to Succensus, 439, 446, 447, 449, 450. To Valerianus, Bishop of Iconium, 431, 449, 452, 453, 462. To Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, 442 seq., 452. To Eulogius, 443, 447. *In the Thesaurus*, 453. *In the first of the Treasuries*, 446. *In the dialogue which is titled That Christ is One*, 447. *In the second anathema*, 450. *In the address to the queens* (πρὸς βασιλίδας), 450. *In the so-called first tome*, 451. *In the epistle toward you*, 460, a corrupt passage. Dioscorus, 437, 447, 450, 451.

Domitianus, bishop of Melitene, to whom Eulogius writes, 459, 461. ^A Dosthen or Dositheus, from whom the Dositheans, against whom Eulogius writes, 466, 467, 468. Eutyches, 437, 438, 439, 440, 448, 451. Flavian (of Constantinople), the petition offered to the Emperor Theodosius, 444, 460. Read in the Council of Chalcedon, 451, 460. Gregory Neocaesariensis, *In the work on the partial faith* (ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς κατὰ μέρος πίστεως), 445. Gregory the Theologian, 447, 457, 466. *In the Apologeticus* (ἐν τῷ ἀπολογητικῷ), 452. *The theologians* (οἱ θεολόγοι), 455. The Gregories (Nazianzen and Nyssen), 448, 449. John, bishop of Antioch, 441. The epistle attributed to Julius of Rome to Dionysius, of questionable faith, 445, 448. His epistle to Docimus, praised by Cyril at the Synod of Ephesus, 445, 446. Pope Leo, 463. His epistle, 437, 461. He is censured by the Severians as "the Italian fashion" (τῶν Ἰταλίᾳ ὁ τύπος), 448. The cyclical letters (ἐγκύκλια γράμματα) of the Emperor Leo, by which the decrees of the Synod of Chalcedon are confirmed, 462. Manes, 440, 448. The epistle of the Manichaeans to Scythianus, 447. Mosaic Octateuch (Μωσαϊκὴ Ὀκτάτευχος), 466, the eight books of the Old Testament in which the books of Moses take the lead. Nestorius, 440, 442, 443, 446, 452, 453. Faith of the Orientals, 442, 444, 452, 453, 454. The God-bearing fathers (οἱ θεοφόροι Πατέρες), 457. *To many of the Fathers* (πολλοῖς τῶν Πατέρων), 457, etc. Paul, bishop of Emesa, 441, 442. Paul of Samosata, 448. The Pneumatomachian (Macedonius), ^B condemned at the Synod of Constantinople, 450. Polemius, disciple of Apollinarius, 447. Samaritans, against whom Eulogius writes, 466 et seq. Severus, 437, 444, 460, 463. Those of Severus's party (οἱ ἀπὸ Σευήρου), 447 et seq. *Writing to the grammarian Sergius* (πρὸς τὸν γραμματικὸν Σέργιον γράφων), 461. The new lawgiver (ὁ καινὸς νομοθέτης), 457. Of the dispersion of Severus (τῆς Σευήρου διασπορᾶς), 462. Simeon Stylites, 463. *Great Simeon who on his pillar passed that angelic life* (ὁ μέγας Συμεὼν ὁ ἐν τῷ στύλῳ τὸν ἀγγελικὸν ἐκεῖνον βίον διανυσάμενος). Simon Magus, 466. Synod of Alexandria, document of the faith (πίστις ἔγγραφος), sent by Cyril to Nestorius before the Synod of Ephesus, 450. Synod of Chalcedon, 444, 447, 448, 451, 460, 461. Under the emperors Marcian and Leo (Thrace), 463. Synod of Constantinople, 447, 450. Synod of Nicaea, 448, 450, 457. Theodoret is numbered among the holy men, 462. *The Theologian* (John the Evangelist), 459. Timothy the heretic, 463. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 451, 452. Valentinus the heretic, 448. His words: "We pour out broad laughter at the Galileans who say there are two natures in Christ; for we say that the nature of the visible and the invisible is one" (τῶν Γαλιλαίων ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ δύο φύσεις λεγόντων, πλατὺν καταχέομεν γέλωτα· ἡμεῖς γὰρ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ καὶ ἀοράτου μίαν εἶναι τὴν φύσιν φαμέν), 446. Two books, long lost, to Domitianus, bishop of Melitene, in defense of the tome of Leo of Rome—which opposed Nestorius and Eutyches alike—containing an Apology against the Acephali, Timothy, who had attacked it acutely, and Severus, who had opposed it at length. In this writing of Eulogius it is excellently demonstrated: ^C *One must not judge writings from a part, nor by taking certain fragments use them to slander the whole intention of the author* (μὴ δεῖν ἐκ μέρους τὰ συγγράμματα κρίνειν, μηδ' ἀποσπαράγματά τινα λαμβάνοντας διὰ τούτων τὴν ὅλην τοῦ γράφοντος ἐνδιαβάλλειν διάνοιαν). That from the writings or the mind of the writers judgment should not be rendered from parts and shreds, nor should they be burdened with slander on this account. He praises, among other things, the sixth book of Eustathius of Antioch against the Arians; for it must be read thus, *in the sixth book against the Arians* (ἐν ἔκτῳ λόγῳ κατὰ Ἀρειανῶν), instead of *in six books* (ἐν ἓξ λόγοις), since Eustathius had written eight books against the Arians, concerning which I have spoken in vol. IX, p. 135 et seq. Furthermore, Basil's epistle to the Sozopolitans and to the monks. He notes the epistle of Severus to Julian of Halicarnassus. Certain slips and hallucinations of the interpreter Schott in this chapter and the next were noted by Mr. Elias Veiel in his *Diatribe de sacris oikonomiae generibus*, p. 19 et seq., Ulm, 1688, 4. IV. *Thesaur. epistol., Lacrozian.*, tom. III, p. 202.

A book by the same Eulogius, priest first of Antioch and abbot of St. Mary of the Justinianeans, and finally Pope or bishop of Alexandria, for the same tome of Leo of Rome, against the Theodosians and the Acephali (Severus), who criticized Leo for points which not only the Synod of Chalcedon and Cyril, but the holy doctors Athanasius, Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, and Amphilochius had confirmed by their own votes. This lucubration of Eulogius has also perished. See Reinesius, *Var. lect.*, p. 152.

By the same holy man, an *Invective* (στηλιτευτικὸς) against the Theodosians and the Gainites, followers of Gaius (of whom see above, p. 216, old ed.), regarding their sudden reconciliation and concord, which was soon after broken again; cf. Reinesius, *Var. lect.*, p. 466. By *oikonomia* (dispensation / economy) in this chapter, one must not understand, as Schott does, the incarnation; ^D thence it was necessary that the entire speech should be rendered obscure; rather, it refers to ecclesiastical dispensation in preserving peace with the dissidents and avoiding troubles and tumults, provided that sound doctrine suffers no detriment thereby. Just as Gregory Nazianzen says that Athanasius yielded in words and was easygoing where he had observed a consensus in the matter: and in his *Oration on Pentecost* he rebukes those who find fault with the syllables.

A SERMON ON PALM SUNDAY, AND ON THE COLT OF AN ASS. BY OUR HOLY FATHER EULOGIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

^A 1. We who are believers, celebrating today the royal advent, let us meet the King as is worthy of God. The time is at hand; let us not sleep; let us lift up our minds to God; let us not quench the Spirit; let us brightly kindle our lamps; let us change the tunic of the soul; let us carry palms as victors; with the crowd, let us shout what the crowd shouts; with the children, let us sing as children sing: "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." For behold, he has come; behold, he has appeared; behold, the King is present. Again he enters Jerusalem; again the cross is prepared; again the handwriting against Adam is torn asunder; again paradise is opened; again the robber is brought into the dwelling. Again the Church leads the dance. Again the wicked synagogue is widowed; again the demons are put to shame; again the Jews rage; again ^B the faithful are saved. Again all things participate in the feast; all things hymn the Master. The heavens rejoice; the mountains exult. O rivers, clap your hands; draw near, cry out, seeing the words of the prophets now become reality. O hills, be jubilant; O crowds, shout; in—

O infants, sing hymns; disciples, preach; priests, speak; theologians, glorify; O inhabitants of Sion, run to meet Him; O nations, gather together; O beings heavenly, earthly, and under the earth, every rank and age, for He comes to benefit all; He has appeared to have mercy on all; He acts as the bestower of joy to all. Being God, He has become man, ^A and has been seen on earth, and has lived among men. The Lord is with the servants; the Payer [of debts] is with the debtors; the Salvation is with the lost; the Redeemer is with the condemned; the Hope is with the despairing; the Resurrection is with those who lie below; the Merciful One is with the ungrateful; the Liberator is with the fugitives; the Innocent is with the guilty. With those who are liable to punishment is He who is liable to none. With sinners is the Sinless One; toward the ungrateful, He who gives generously to all.

II. A Sermon on the feast of the palms.

^B II. Do you see, beloved, the mystery of the feast? Do you see the miracles of the present day? Yesterday Bethany was keeping the feast; today the whole Church enjoys the divine presence. Yesterday He bestowed life upon another; today He Himself comes to death. Yesterday the four-day-old man was raised; today the Three-Day One is present. He raised the four-day-old Lazarus, that He might provide a pledge beforehand of the common resurrection of our nature, which is composed of the four elements. But there, indeed, Martha is distracted, bearing the figure of the legal worship; here, however, Mary sits at the feet of the Lord, depicting the Church’s affection and sitting-in-waiting for Him. And He who, six days before the Passover, through the five senses of the body, restored the four-day-old Lazarus, giving back one brother in two, commands that man’s bonds be loosed; but He Himself now arrives destined to experience bonds. But He arrives, not with a mob or with uproar; nor does He carry with Him the Virtues, and Principalities, and Powers invisibly surrounding Him like a retinue; ^C nor is He seated on a throne exalted and lifted up; nor is He covered by any wings, and fire-formed wheels, and many-eyed creatures; nor does He terrify and shake all things with trumpets, and powers, and portents; but He is hidden in human nature. For this is an advent of kindness, not of power; of indulgence, not of severity; of condescension, not of retribution. He does not appear in the glory of the Father, but He is manifested in the humility of the Mother. This advent Zechariah the marvelous proclaimed to us from afar, and, summoning all creation to joy as if in the person of the Church, shouted to Jerusalem, saying: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion. This same voice Gabriel also used to the Virgin, saying: Rejoice, ^D full of grace, the Lord is with thee. This also the Savior Himself, when He had risen from the dead, shouted to the women.

^A That you might learn that because of the ancient voice which Eve heard—"In sorrow you shall bring forth children"—for this reason He shouted "Rejoice" to the women, just as Zechariah also preached, saying: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim, O daughter of Jerusalem." What is this proclamation? Explain it openly, O prophet: "Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, you who bring good tidings; lift up your voice." What is He to say to Sion? "Behold, your King comes to you, humble." How so? You have spoken of the advent; explain the mode. Is it in chariots and vehicles? Is it with forces and armies, and cavalry, and the rest of the pageantry of kings? By no means, he says. How then? Mounted upon an ass and a new colt. What are you saying? Does a King ever arrive seated upon a colt, ^B lowly and without glory? Yes, he says. For He does not come possessing the same haughtiness as others. But what? In the form of a servant, as a bridegroom, this gentle one, and as a lamb, meek, and as a quiet drop upon a fleece; and as a sheep to the slaughter, and as an innocent lamb led to the sacrifice, so He arrives, bearing the irrational nature of men, and sitting upon an irrational creature, teaching men not to be puffed up: "Putting down the mighty from their thrones, and exalting the humble; filling the hungry with good things, and sending the rich away empty," having twelve, and those miserable men, in His company, through whom He calls together the nations. This is the branch that sprouted from the root of Jesse, to whom the children of the Hebrews, meeting Him today, hold out olive branches as to a merciful One, and exult with palms as to the victor over death, and say: "Hosanna: Blessed is He who ^C comes in the name of the Lord." For what does the evangelist say?

III. "And it came to pass, when Jesus had drawn near to Bethphage and to Bethany, at the mountain that is called Olivet, He sent two of His disciples, saying: 'Go into the village that is opposite you, and entering into it, you shall find an ass and a new colt, upon which no man has ever sat; untie them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say: The Lord has need of it.'" Then they carry the word of the Word into action, and they led the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and Jesus sat. The village opposite, therefore, is a type of the present life; for it was ^D opposite and not near to God. When, therefore, He drew near to this village—when, having been made flesh, God became "With us"—then at last He sends two disciples

that is, the two Testaments, to bring to Him the two peoples: the old ass, the worn-out synagogue; and the young foal, the ^A unexercised people of the Gentiles. In saying also "opposite," He signifies that He has sent to release from punishment and to call into heaven him who was placed in the opposite part of the paradise of delights: seeing him now having attained salvation, the ancient prophets and apostles and sacred heralds, with a certain holy procession, go to meet Him who descended from the supernal mountain into Sion for the sake of the voluntary passion, and with auspicious unanimity they offer their divine voices as though they were living olive branches, singing: *10 Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.*

^B IV. What sayest thou? Thou seest Him sitting upon a miserable foal, and thou criest out: *Hosanna in the highest?* Thou lookest upon the form of a servant, and in the name of the Lord, thou callest Him God the Lord? Yea, he says; He sits upon a foal, and is not separated from the Father’s bosom; He is praised by children, and in the heavens is declared God by the Seraphim; He enters into Jerusalem, yet He has not abandoned the Jerusalem above. John sees Him, and immediately meets Him and cries out: *Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.* And another: *Behold our God: behold the Lord, He shall come and save ^C us:* by whom this day the eyes of the blind were opened. One cries out to the Lord toward the East: *Behold the man, the East is His name.* Another commands toward the West: *Make a way for Him who ascendeth upon the setting, the Lord is His name;* and this one says: *Arise, O North,* and that one cries: *Come, O South.* But David, in a most comprehensive and cross-revealing manner, gathers together the proclamation from the East and the West and the North and the Sea. Jeremias, ^D as it were by the indication of a finger, showing the coming One to the Gentiles, sings, saying: *This is our God, and there shall none other be accounted in comparison of Him. He hath found out all the way of knowledge; and after these things He was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.* One says to Jerusalem: *Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Sion.* Another urges the children: *Praise the Lord, ye children.* The children answer: *Hosanna: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.* The Psalmist, having heard these things, cries to the Lord: *Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou perfected praise.* The Lord commands the people: *Suffer the little children to come unto me.* Rightly were the children affected by the voice of Elisabeth. For, as that Virgin and Mother of God said—

Blessed is the fruit of thy womb* ^A; they themselves say to Him who was born of her: *Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.* What is: *Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord*? He who cometh—from where? From heaven, or from the Virgin? He who cometh and goeth forward—whither? To the passion. *In the name of the Lord*—of the Father, clearly—just as Christ Himself said: *I proceeded from the Father, and I go unto my Father.* ^B

V. Did you see the teaching of the theologians among youths ignorant of speech? Children recognized the Lord of creation by nature itself; but their fathers were ungrateful. These praised Him as God, while those crucified Him as an enemy. These chant *Hosanna*; those cry out, *Let him be crucified.* The young and ignorant age is made wise, and they who profess themselves to be wise have been made foolish and are shrouded in darkness. The children spread their garments, and their fathers divided His garments. These take off their own tunics, presaging the nakedness of the synagogue, ^C and at the same time showing us that it is worthwhile to strip off the old man and submit to Christ; those cast lots for His tunic to see whose it would be. The children receive Christ with palm branches; the fathers proceed against Him armed with swords and clubs. These give blessing; those blaspheme. These, as young lambs, accepted the Shepherd; those, like wolves, slaughtered the Lamb. How truly strange and contrary to nature was that spectacle to behold: infants ^D suckling at the breast in the arms of mothers, with one hand holding their mother's breast, and with the other extending palm branches to the God born of the Virgin Mother, pouring forth both maternal milk and the Dominical doctrine from their mouths; and, before the use of words, calling out to the God-Word the fruit of their lips, and saying *Hosanna*—which means, *Save, I beseech thee, who art in the highest.*

VI. Who taught you, O children? Who infused wisdom into you? Who, long before the age for the free use of speech, formed you by a more secret doctrine to speak? Let the ungrateful Jew approach; let the adulterous synagogue be present. Tell me, O Jew, did not all the prophets proclaim to us that Christ was to come? Truly, he says. But this is the point of contention. He has come, VI. he says. Very well. Let us look, then, at the claim of Him who comes, and then recognize…

whether He has come or not. Do you say that He who comes is God, or a mere man? A mere man, he says. Like David, or David himself? Like David. O malicious caviller! O foolish in heart! How then does David himself say that the Lord comes from the Lord? Just as you heard your children just now singing and praising: *Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, God is the Lord, and he has appeared to us*; and again: *The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool*; and again: *The Lord has reigned over the nations*; and: *Say among the nations that the Lord has reigned.* Who then is this King? Hear Isaiah crying out about you: *And they shall desire to be burned by fire.* Why so, O prophet? *Because a child is born to us, a Son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Messenger of great counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, God the mighty, the Potentate, Prince of peace, Father of the coming age.* What do you say, O Jew? Behold, the prophets clearly foretold Him who comes as God.

[VII.] The heretic seizes upon the word. The Manichaean springs forward quickly and says: "Look, since you have clearly confessed Him to be God, who took on flesh from the Virgin, how do you not confess Him to be God who suffered and was crucified, if indeed you say that He who was born and He who was crucified and died are one and the same?" O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Listen, and believe, and be ashamed. That subsistent Word of the Father, united to the earthly substance of the mother, desiring to renew the image that had long been buried by sin, became man, while preserving in the abject condition of man the height of divinity; not changing the impassibility of the Godhead into passion; nor assuming sin from the nature that had sinned, lest what was for our salvation should become for Him a source of dishonor; and our exaltation be found to be His fall. In no way did He die in His divinity, whatever the Manichaean and Arius and Marcion may rave. For what need would there have been for the Incarnation? He was not crucified in His naked body—although Paul of Samosata may burst with rage—so that we might believe [it was] as the blood of a mere man. For cursed, says the Scripture, is everyone who hangs on a tree, and whoever has hope in a mere man. A man could not save us. For

Moses, or one of the prophets, was not about to die for us; but all were subject to sin. Therefore, we stood in need of the sinless God having been incarnate, and accepting the death for us in the flesh. For this reason, the bodiless One is made flesh, so that what He possesses as impossible through His divinity, He might possess as possible through humanity.

^B VIII. He suffers, and does not suffer: the first, do not attribute to the Word; the second, do not think of the flesh of the Word [yet do not separate the flesh from the Word]. For I do not separate, but I distinguish, that which is proper to either essence. I say the Word remains united, but not suffering along with it—hanging up, but not having accepted the nails into His own nature—being buried, but not dying together—being enclosed, but not circumscribed—the soul being separated from the body, but the Word departing from neither of these. Whence Hades was despoiled, the divine soul having descended thither. For having gone, He preached also to the spirits in Hades; but in the sepulcher, His holy body did not see corruption. For the Word was inseparable from His own flesh, at every time, nowhere leaving this bare or deserted, or godless, or as if it were one of the bodies such as we have. However, even if our rational nature was united according to hypostasis to the Word, yet it was not saved thereby. For how will that which is newly created be saved by that which is before the ages? Or how will that which has a beginning be made like to that which is without beginning? Wherefore you also see Him today sitting upon a colt; but as a man. For He was twofold. Since He also grew, and suckled, and wept, and was in agony according to the law of our nature. For the God Word, having been incarnate, did not refuse the blameless passions of our nature; since otherwise He would have refused it itself before these. The God Word does not sleep in the boat; For He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep; but our flesh sleeps, which the Word of God put on. The divine nature does not hunger, nor does it grow weary from the journey, as Isaiah says: The great and strong God will not hunger, nor will He labor. How then does He hunger? By the flesh which is from us. How does He suffer? By the flesh which is from us. How does He weep? By the flesh which is from us. How was He put to death? In the flesh; but He is made alive in the spirit. How does He shake the earth? By the divinity which is from the Father. How does He tread upon Hades? By divinity, not out of us. How does He say: I and the Father are one? By the birth above, before the ages. How, The Father is greater than I? By the birth below, from the Virgin. How, He who has seen Me, has seen the Father? By the uncreated nature of the Word. How, I cannot do anything ^C of Myself...

What then? Is the Word of lesser power than the Father? Far be that Arian madness. What is it that He says: "Glorify Me, O Father"? The body of the Word. Who is it that says: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me"? The Word who is in the body. How, "My Father and your Father"? The Father is indeed Father, not of the flesh, but of the God-Word who is from Him. "My God and your God"? God, not of the Word; ^A for how could the God of His equal God exist? But He is God of the form of a servant which is in the Word. "Before Abraham was, I am"? The God-Word who is in the flesh. "The Lord said to Me: You are My Son, this day I have begotten You"? By the recent incarnation of the Word. For it was not one person who was begotten of the Father before the day-star, and another who became incarnate from the Mother in Bethlehem. For even if Paul of Samosata raves these things, yet Paul of Tarsus does not teach them. But when he signifies the form of God in the form of a servant, he cries out: "Who being the brightness of His glory"; but when again he signifies the distinction of the flesh united to the Word, he says: "And God raised up the Lord"; that by showing the distinction of both forms in the body, the Apostle Paul might strike down both Manes, the phantasm-fighter, and Paul, the man-worshipper.

IX. But you, what do you say? What do you establish, O new Manichaean, and pure and unadulterated defender of his madness? Do you not grant that the flesh is called a nature? But there ^B you tremble with fear, where there was no fear. And you do not truly reverence the Lord saying in the time of the passion: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"? If it is willing, how is it weak? What is the form of Christ? What is the weak flesh? It is entirely that of Adam, who was made weak. But who also prays on bended knees? Does the Word pray? And how, being God, does He need God? If, therefore, He is equal to the Father, just as He is equal, He does not pray in deity, but as man. "I have power to lay down My soul, and I have power to take it up again"; he who has the power, how does he need the help of another? He who says: "Destroy this temple"—that is, His own flesh—"and in three days I will raise it up"; how, O fighter against the deity, is He who raises up His own temple destroyed with the temple? For if He Himself is destroyed, does He not entirely need one to raise Him? You indeed are afraid, as it seems, lest hearing that the body of God suffered ^C, you might worship and communicate with a mere creature. ^D

but I recoil from this, lest I should call the Deity to have suffered and died, and bring the entire mystery of the Trinity into disgrace. For if the Word suffered, but the Father is of an impassible nature, then the essence of the Word would be entirely different from that of God the Father. And what reason ^A would there then be to contend with the Arians on this account? But if the essence of the Father, and of the Word, and of the Holy Spirit is one, yet the Word of God suffered in the flesh, then the Father and the Holy Spirit must also necessarily be of a passible and mortal essence. For if the Word suffered along with the flesh, He must also have died along with it. And if He died along with it, how did He despoil Hades? How did He raise the dead? And it will be found that, being dead, He was entirely separated from the living Father. And if this is the case, there would no longer be a Trinity in heaven at the time of the passion, but a duality, waiting for the Word to be raised by the Father and to ascend into heaven. O forbidden audacity! What serpent, hissing with his venom, deceived the enemies of God into declaring that the impassible God is passible, making the Creator weaker than created things? Does it not shame you, O heretic, when you see the sun shining on a tree—where the tree is cut down, but the sun is neither separated from it nor cut down along with it—to say that the Sun of Righteousness became passible while in His own body? Nor, O corrupt one, have you ever seen a murderer or some criminal whose head or hands were cut off, yet whose immortal soul did not die along with the body? ^B Then, having received a mortal wound from the Word, the enemy of God has fallen; the opponent of Christ has breathed again; the Jew again behaves shamelessly. What does he say?

X. "See," he says, "that it is not God, but a man that we killed." To him, it is immediately worth our while to say: "Be silent; be hushed; put a bridle upon your mouth." Be it so: you have set naught the Law; be it so: you have killed the prophets; do you not even revere David, who says concerning Christ: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee" (Ps. CIX, 3)? This is the Father on high. And again: "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee" (Ps. II, 7). The one and unique Christ has two births: one from the Father before time, and another from a mother without seed. When, therefore, He says: "I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the smiting" (Isa. L, 6), these things He took from Mary of the tribe of Judah; and what He took from Judah, these He gave to the Jews ^C to smite and to scourge. But those things which as God He has by nature, these "man shall not see and live" (Exod. XXXIII, 20). But the Jew insists again: "How then does the prophet say concerning the Crucified: 'And we saw'..."

' him and he had no form nor beauty" (Isa. LIII, 2)? But you see again, O foolish one, that it is written concerning Him: "Fair in beauty above the sons of men" (Ps. XLIV, 3). If you say, "What God can be recent?" I in turn will ask you: "What man’s name remains before the sun, and before the moon, for generation of generations?" (Ps. LXXI, 5). And, "He shall descend as rain upon the fleece, and as a drop that falls upon the earth" (Ps. LXXI, 6). ^A Again, perhaps you will say: "What God is sold for thirty pieces of silver?" But I will ask you in turn: "What man’s blood redeemed and sanctified the whole world?" Now if you are offended by that, because you see Him today sitting upon a colt, why do you not also say what the children learned without a teacher, O unlearned one, and shouted together: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"?

But that the Lord and God who sits as man upon the colt—let your David, though not yours, but the true one, come forth to me, discoursing concerning your children and the One hymned by them—let him say who this is who is being declared God; ^B and standing, as it were, directly before the colt, crying out in this manner: "You who sit on the throne above, and sit on the colt below, 'O Lord our Lord, how admirable is your name in all the earth! For your magnificence is elevated above the heavens. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise because of your enemies, to destroy the enemy and avenger' (Ps. VIII, 2, 3), that is, the devil. You who sit on a colt as a man, you are true God. And we shall see the heavens, the works of your fingers. You who sit on a colt, 'founded the moon and the stars' (Ps. VIII, 4). You 'minimized man a little lower than the angels'—and carrying and wearing man, you exalted him above every principality and power, and 'crowned him with glory and honor.' ^C You who are seen on a colt, 'Your throne, O God, is for the age of the age' (Ps. XLIV, 7). And, 'A rod of uprightness is the rod of your kingdom. You loved righteousness and alone hated iniquity. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you' (Ps. XLIV, 8), because you took upon yourself the form of a servant. He anointed you, not with the anointing of oil, but with the Holy Spirit. For He Himself is the oil of exultation. Therefore also the Virgin, your Mother, was saying: 'My spirit has exulted in God my Savior.'" ^D

' ^A when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. But consider for me, faithful listener, how the all-holy Virgin called her Son God. For she says: 'My God,' according to His divine substance; 'my Son,' according to the substance which He took to Himself from me. For I did not bring forth for the world a mere man, but an incarnate God. And a trustworthy witness is the seal of my virginity. Do not disgrace, O man, the garment which God took from me, lest you insult Him who wears it; do not insult the tabernacle, for truly, by no work of hands was it stitched together for Him who dwelt within it. Do not separate the light from my carnal lamp, lest you wrongly extinguish the sun that has shone upon the world, and that has become man without human seed. For I have not known a man, although I have known God who became man in me.

^B XI. You have, O most faithful and most holy flock of Christ, the praises of the feast: exult. You have the divine and blameless doctrines of the Church: delight in them. You have the spiritual weapons; fight against the wolves of the flock: teach them not to blaspheme: teach them to contend for the truth: demonstrate that the field of our Church and of Christ is pure from all tares. If you are like some Lazarus, bound by the chains of sins or of contrary dogmas, hear today the Word calling to you: 'Come forth,' and be loosed, and arise. But if you are a disciple, and fit for instruction, go at the sending of the Lord, and, having loosed it, lead to Christ the colt and the colts, and many who are bound in error, and who are opposed to the true faith ^C and to the opposite village. And if some speak against you, and attempt to hinder the loosening of those who are miserably bound, saying: 'Why are you loosing the colt?' just as they rebuked the blind for crying out, say you also: 'Because the Lord has need of them.' For the Lord looses the bound; the Lord makes the blind wise, just as you heard today in the Gospel. For since they understood that the Sun of justice had arrived, they rightly were crying out to Him: 'Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David.' O strange and paradoxical miracles! The blind receive their sight, and the seeing Jews are becoming blind. These confess Him as Lord, and those ask: 'Who is this?' For the evangelist says: 'But the crowds that went before and that followed were shouting, saying: Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.' ^D And when He had entered into Jerusalem, all the city was shaken, saying: 'Who is this?' Do you see the strange mystery of the King? Sitting upon a colt, He shakes the city, and being nailed to the cross, He shakes the inhabited world; that you may learn that He has come to shake and to overthrow the deceit of the polytheism of the idols.

[XII.] Behold also for me the unknown aspect of the mystery of His economy. When He was in Hades, shaking the prison there, as the Powers above cried out to the powers below, "Lift up your gates, you princes, that He who says, 'I am the door,' may enter," the opposing powers, astonished, answered, "Who is this King of glory?" When He entered the earthly Jerusalem, those amazed by the novelty of the situation asked, "Who is this?" When He returned to the heavenly Jerusalem, the intellectual Powers, who had never seen Him because of His incorporeal nature, seeing Him with a body, marveled at the strange manner of His ascent and were perplexed with one another, saying, "Who is this that has come into the incorporeal realms clothed in a body?" But it is also worth wondering how those royal powers could ask, "Who is this that comes?" when at His birth on earth they had together cried out and sung, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men," having clearly instructed the Hebrew children in this, who were saying on this day, "Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." For thus Luke has spoken. And it was to be seen in Zion, as though the heavenly and earthly were answering each other with reciprocal voices and greeting one another. The beings above say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"; those below answer, "Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." The angels said, "On earth peace"; men cried out, "Peace in heaven." For what reason? Because He is present who cries to all, "Peace be to you." For this, the prophet prayed, saying, "O Lord our God, give us peace"; that is, "Send Your only-begotten Son, that through Him You might be reconciled to us, seeing our nature united to You through Him." Seeing this peace, the heavenly choirs cried out, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace"; that is, a perfect reconciliation of God with His enemies, which the children, having learned, also cried out: "Hosanna: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." For those things which were once hostile ^C have now become brothers; both heavenly and earthly things offer one confession and adoration of the Divinity to Christ, who is both heavenly and earthly. Wherefore the beings above order those below to offer confession of the Divinity: "Let all the families of the nations adore Him." The beings below respond to those above: "Let all the angels of God adore Him." David cries to both: "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth exult." The children responded: "Hosanna: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

[XIII.] With whom let us also praise and celebrate the feast today, not pompously, but divinely; holding palm branches not only in our hand, but also in our soul, and having made it whiter than snow, let us strip off from it all mortality of the old and skin-clad tunic, having cast aside all pride and haughtiness. For this reason, the King of the spirits does not come on chariots and with armies, but sitting on a wretched and lowly foal.

is seated upon a pitiful and small foal ^A and comes, teaching you not to be puffed up on horses and mules, which have no understanding (Ps. 31:9). Therefore let us also, in moderation, accompany Christ, so that we may ascend together; with the angels let us sound hymns; with the children let us glorify; with the crowd let us shout the things of the crowd; with Bethany let us leap for joy; with Lazarus let us rise from dead works; with the inhabitants of Sion let us dance; with those blind who regained sight let us cry out; with infants and elders let us praise; with the disciples let us preach; let us duly strew branches of olives in the way of life through mercy; let us, like the children, prune the bulk of our redundant existence, and by mercy let us strew ourselves in the way ^B which says: I am the way (John 14:6); so that we too may find mercy through it and from it, and with it enter into the heavenly Jerusalem. Let us enter together into the great temple, both those who go before and those who follow; those who go before, being those at the third hour, and those who follow, those at about the eleventh; and those who go before through acts, and those who follow through the intention of the mind, all being with Christ, the same people following together, and having followed, reigning together with Him, and enjoying eternal good things, let us send up glory and greatness, together with the Father, and with the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

OF THE MOST BLESSED EULOGIUS, POPE OF ALEXANDRIA, SEVEN CHAPTERS CONCERNING THE TWO NATURES OF OUR LORD AND GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

Translated by FRANCIS COMBEFIS.

I. If our Lord Jesus Christ is of one nature after the union, tell me, of which nature? Of that which took,

or what has been assumed? And what has become of the other? But if both exist, how are they one, unless a composite one has been formed from both? And if this is the case, how is Christ not of a different substance from the Father, who is devoid of all composition?

II. ^B If our Lord Jesus Christ has never been acknowledged to be of a dual nature, how can it be said that Christ after the union is of one nature, or even that an "union" can be spoken of at all? But if Christ is acknowledged to have been of two natures, tell me, I ask, when was Christ of a dual nature, and when did he become of one?

III. Is God the Word of the same substance as the flesh assumed by him, or of a different one? But if he is of the same, why has the Trinity not become a quaternity? And if the flesh of God the Word is of a different substance, how is Christ not of a dual nature?

IV. There are some who speak of one incarnate nature of God the Word; and I imagine that you also speak in this way. But if this is to be understood as one substance of God and the flesh, how can it be that the created is the same as the uncreated, and that the eternal is the same as that which is subject to time? If, however, it is because one nature holds another or is held by another, who would endure to speak of one and one not as two, but as one?

V. If the nature of God the Word and the Father is one, why is the nature of God the Word and the Father and the flesh not one?

VI. ^C If in no respect are God the Word and the flesh two, how are they not in every respect God the Word and the flesh one? And if God the Word and the flesh are in every respect the same, how will the Word not be flesh, and the flesh the Word, and co-eternal with the Father, and consubstantial, just as God the Word is? But if God the Word and flesh are not in every way one, how are they not in some respect God the Word and the flesh two?

VII. If it is impossible for God the Word and the flesh to be more united than God the Word and the Father are, how is it that God the Word and the flesh are in no respect two?

FRAGMENTS

^D Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, a discourse concerning the Trinity and the divine dispensation of the one God the Word of the Trinity.

(From the Vatican codex, edited by Angelo Mai, *Scriptorum Veterum nova collectio*, VII, 177.)

In the beginning before the ages was God, and God was before the ages, and before all things was God [the Word], before the world, before the angels, before heaven, before the sun,

^A before light, before the stars, before winds, before waters, before breath, before the earth, before every visible and invisible creature. This God, then, being without beginning, eternal, and uncreated, by His own will and good pleasure, as He alone knows—and when He knows, and whence He knows—created all the heavenly host and incorporeal armies and ranks—the invisible ones, those with many eyes and those without eyes, the six-winged ones, the thrones, the powers of the heavens. Then, after these, He created the visible world, consisting of heaven and earth, to which man belongs, an image of visible and invisible creation, since he possesses visible flesh and an invisible soul. Having created this man, God instructed him, and gave him the law written by Moses to lead him back from the error of idolatry. ^B But the law was not able to recall man; then He sent prophets, exhorting, threatening, and working miracles. Yet not even so did the misled man return from his error. At the last, having taken pity on His own creation, God Himself appeared on earth, and the God-Word lived among men as man, and the form of the Master descended to earth, that the form of the servant might ascend into the heavens.

Then, having fallen from his former error and expectation, the wicked enemy of mankind, when he saw himself defeated and crushed by Christ, trampled by the cross, and plunged into the depths by baptism; and the idols destroyed, and idolatry subsequently abolished from among men, and ^C the knowledge of God preached in the world—what does this wicked and crafty inventor of evils do? He sowed a second, different idolatry and error in the world: the tares of heresies. For immediately, in the time of the apostles, he raised up, as the first abominable leader of the heresies of the world, Simon Magus, who claimed himself to be God. Then, in the second place, Nicolaus, from whom the Nicolaitans were named. Then Theudas. Then, one after another, other agents and inventors of his error, on account of whom many and diverse holy synods were gathered by the Catholic Church.

So, in the course of time, there arose an abominable leader, ^D Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, saying that the Son and Word of God was a creature, and of a different essence from the Father. Against him the holy synod of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers was gathered at Nicaea, which defined the Son to be consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity, and the same [to be] consubstantial with us men according to His humanity, declaring Him not to be a creature, but the Creator; not a thing made, but the Maker of all things. Then, after fifty-five years, there appeared Macedonius, that deceitful bishop of Constantinople, calling the Holy Spirit a creature. On account of whom the holy synod of the [one hundred and] fifty holy Fathers was held, which proclaimed the Holy Spirit uncreated—that is, possessing one essence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, one divinity, one authority, one power, in three substances.

Fifty-one years having elapsed again, ^A there emerged Nestorius, that nefarious and impure prelate of Constantinople, who asserted that the holy Virgin was a bearer of a man, not a bearer of God. On his account, the prior Ephesian synod of two hundred holy Fathers was held, which proclaimed the holy Virgin to be properly and truly the Theotokos, and struck Nestorius with an eternal anathema. Then, about twenty-five years later, emerged Eutyches, the nefarious archimandrite of the monasteries of Constantinople, saying that the body of Christ is not consubstantial with us; and at nearly the same time, Dioscorus, pope of Alexandria, arose, who spoke of one nature in Christ. On account of these two detestable heresiarchs, the holy synod of Chalcedon of the orthodox holy Fathers was gathered, which, beyond the aforementioned heresiarchs, also anathematized Nestorius, and declared Christ to be consubstantial with us according to his humanity, and established that two indivisible natures are to be believed in with one person; for Christ is one, and not two, and his substance is composite.

When those two heresiarchs had therefore been extinguished—that is, anathematized—about a hundred years later there was held the auspicious fifth synod, under the Emperor Justinian, against Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, who, carried away by a vain mindset, babbled that our souls existed in the heavens before our bodies and that eternal punishments would have an end: all of which the divinely inspired synod rejected and struck with anathema. ^B It would be a long task to construct an oration concerning the rest of the holy synods held not infrequently in diverse places, and to narrate the time and place of the various heresies that emerged. For some denied that there was one [God], as the Gentiles; others said there were two, or indeed four, as the Arians and Manichæans; others wickedly blasphemed three essences in the holy Trinity, like the Sabellians, and asserted one substance in it; others again [erred] concerning the dispensation of Christ...

FRAGMENTA DOGMATICA

From Eulogius of Alexandria, *Against those who say*, "If you say Christ has two substances, necessarily the whole holy Trinity has been incarnate." (Ang. Mai Script. vet., vol. VII, 18, 19.)

These are the things that are objected by the adversaries. ^D For perhaps they think that the essence of the divinity is divisible, whose one part is perceived in the Father, another in the Son, and another in the Holy Spirit, as if each person represented the properties of the deity only in part, and not in whole. We, however, in no way come to such a degree of impiety as to imagine a division or section in the divine essence. But we say, although each person...

possesses the divine insignia marked by its characteristics, so that ^A nothing is lacking to it—such as goodness, the power of creating, and whatever things belong to the uncreated nature. Therefore, we profess the Trinity to be consubstantial, because the same substance is most completely recognized in three persons. For the Father has the essence of the divinity completely, just as the Son and the Holy Spirit do. Paul, the herald of the truth, confirms this, where he says: "In him dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily." For he does not signify that the Father was incarnate, but that the entire divinity exists in the three persons without any deficiency: inasmuch as it exists perfectly in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and in each individual person, according to the voice of the Savior saying: "All things that the Father has are mine"; that is, whatever things are the distinguishing characteristics of the Father’s essence, the same ones belong also to the Word of God, even after he was incarnate; not as if the Father were the Son, or the Son were the Father. For these names signify only a relationship. Why, therefore, should we not say that the essence of the divinity is in the Son without any defect, since we declare him to be perfect God? Or why, when those who confess him to be perfect man, should we not also confess that the whole substance of humanity is in him? For he did not take only a part of it, as Apollinarius says—meaning flesh without a rational soul—but the whole substance, which is flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul.

For this [substance], since it exists in each man ^C generally and perfectly, may rightly be called substance. For individuals are distinguished or separated from one another not by substance, but by the accompanying properties, magnitude, color, and, to put it in one word, the characteristic qualities of the persons. And how will they say that Christ is from two natures, unless they understand the name "nature" to stand for "substances"? For they will not dare to say that it is spoken of as being from two natures in place of characteristic hypostases, lest they be compelled to say he is from two persons. For a characteristic hypostasis is understood as a person: I say "characteristic hypostasis," or "in the character," lest, by the fraud customary to heretics, they substitute a hypostasis without a character. For then the hypostasis would carry the signification of substance. And how do they posit that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and with us after the union, and yet are not foolish, since they confess two consubstantial things, while denying two substances?

Opposition to those who say that the Father has a particular substance, and the Son a particular one, and likewise the Holy Spirit.

If the Word, insofar as he is Word, is a nature, and not insofar as he is God; and the Father, insofar as he is Father, is a nature, and not insofar as he is God; and the Holy Spirit, insofar as he is proceeding [Spirit], is a nature, and not insofar as he is God; then neither of them will be God by nature; if indeed "God" is in no way "fatherhood," "sonship," and "procession"; but if he is not God, he is entirely a creature. And again: That in which the Word is distinguished from the Father, in that is his nature,

^A and in these things he is also identified with the flesh. Thus, he will be of the same nature as the flesh, but of a different nature from the Father; having the individual nature common to it, along with the features that distinguish it from the common, not according to those features that distinguish him from the rest of those who are consubstantial—for according to these, the nature is common—but according to the whole nature existing in the whole (entity) ^B in a defining manner. For according to the God-bearing Fathers, the subsistent hypostasis is nothing other than the substance (ousia) with the individualizing features; for the hypostasis entirely exceeds the substance itself by the features that distinguish it from the rest of the members of the same species. Whence nothing is taken into the definition of substance itself, but into the description (hypographē), since they happen to be accidental, not substantial. Wherefore Basil also says that each one of us participates ^C in the common reason of substance for our existence, and by the individual features of each, this one is "so-and-so" and that one is "such-and-such." If, moving in thought past all the features that might pertain, and considering the nature of Peter itself, we define it thus, saying: "he is a rational, mortal animal," the same definition is rendered by us for nature simply; therefore, the same reason will apply to nature simply, and to nature considered in a particular. How, then, is it affirmed by you that common nature cannot exist in individuals, even if it is often said to be from it? So that nature in individuals is common, but the hypostasis is individual. If the Word did not assume the common nature, we excuse ourselves ^D for saying that he assumed the nature, but not the subsistential features of each; for these make Judas "such-and-such," which is evident to all in general. Therefore, when we say that the union occurs from common substances, we are not compelled to introduce all the hypostases under them as these hypocrites babble. If, therefore, we say that, having the nature of the divinity in him perfect and complete and superabundant, he became man, what necessity compels us, in saying this, to bring down the Father and the Spirit also into the humanization? For if Peter was crucified or Paul was beheaded, since either of them possessed the full and complete common nature of men, how did these punishments harm the rest who are subject to the same nature? Because we acknowledge the features not of natures, but of hypostases. Gregory in his second discourse against Eunomius says thus regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that through these names we do not learn a difference of natures, but only the features that characterize the hypostases.

From the Defenses of Eulogius of Alexandria

^A to oppose him, they use his arguments and thus claim for themselves his sickness? For if, as they say, nature is not impersonal, but a person follows upon nature, and they say the ineffable union in Christ has come to be from two natures, then according to them, Emmanuel consists of two persons, and it is left wide open for those who blaspheme Christ to speak of two persons in Him—a position filled with madness. For if one were to join Peter and Paul, one would not say they are one subsistence and one person; for those subsistence and persons that admit union in substance and relation do not result in one subsistence and one person. Subsistences are united, therefore, according to substance, as in the holy Trinity; for there are three subsistences there of one substance.

The union according to relation, however, is understood in many ways—by homonymy, by equality of dignity, by unity of will, and by whatever is similar to these. By homonymy, for example, as Judas son of James and Judas Iscariot; by equality of dignity and unity of will, as Peter and John, for both were apostles and both desired to extend the preaching of Christ. What I previously asserted, saying that two subsistences, that is to say persons, united, never result in one subsistence and one person, is true. If, therefore, Emmanuel is of two natures, and if according to them nature is a person, He will then also be from two persons—things which do not admit of an enhypostatic union. And thus, through the reasoning of these men, ^B the dogma of the impious division will find a place; and Cyril will be mocked for saying such things against Nestorius, and it will be of no help for the upright account of the faith to turn out as it should. Even if some pretend to support a union of persons, the truth does not demand this, nor shall we tolerate it, but we shall walk the straight and middle path: anathematizing those who introduce a duality of persons, while confessing the truth of the two substances in Christ.

But perhaps they have set forth such a proposition, trying to twist things out of embarrassment. For when we say that the two natures are united enhypostatically, they willfully misunderstand, and stripping our confession, they ^C use against us the argument of "united enhypostatically" as if it were discordant with our confession, and they say: "Nature is not impersonal." What then, does this 'wise' proposition of theirs mean? If they mean that it is impossible for natures to be observed otherwise than in persons, every person, even those with little knowledge, would agree with them. For who is ignorant that the nature of the Godhead, in a universal sense, is observed in particular persons—what is considered in characteristic subsistences—namely, in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit? Likewise, the angelic nature [is observed] in Michael, in Gabriel, and in the others; and the nature of humanity is recognized ^D in individual persons? But if they wish to establish that a proper person accompanies every nature, I would consider this to be true in the case of natures—

^A and hypostatically united, but it is far from the truth if the discourse concerns natures that are joined by composition and in subsistence. Yet the truth stands in this: when different natures are brought together in an indivisible union, they effect one person and one subsistence; if there are four elements, they are different substances, but they nonetheless form one body—whether of wood or stone—observed in a particularity, which is subsistence.

But since this example seems to be used too briefly and in a confused manner, we must take the example of man, who is endowed with one subsistence. In each one of us, the substance of the soul is other than the substance of the body; yet these two substances, joined together in individuals, form ^B one person—for instance, John or Paul or anyone else—while remaining two. For the soul did not become flesh, nor did the flesh become soul. A witness to this is Paul, the herald of the truth, when he says, "the inner man and the outer," 1 that he might signify the difference of the substances. Following his footsteps, John, the bishop of Constantinople and teacher of the whole Church, writes such things in his treatise entitled *On the Obscurity of the Old Testament*: "For this animal, man, is twofold, consisting of two substances, the one sentient, the other thinking—I mean soul and body—and having kinship both in heaven and on earth. For through the thinking substance he communicates with the powers above, and through the sentient one he converses with things on earth, having become a close bond ^C of both creations." Thus, therefore, in Christ the union of the two substances has come to pass in one subsistence and one person; even if it has been demonstrated only obscurely through examples, for the dispensation held in Christ, as it truly surpasses every human comprehension, eludes comparison.

But again, those who remain beset by the same epidemic diseases and, according to reason, are immersed in the mire, pretend these things in a different way. For they say: "There is no substance without subsistence; how then is it not to be said that He is in two subsistences, if you say there are two substances?" See the ignorance of these "experts"; for they thoughtlessly bring forward this same proposition to us, again transposing the terms. For what is the difference between substance and nature? And from this, the same response will suffice for us ^D also in the present matter. For I would say to them: "Even if, when considering the human being consisting of soul and body in his characteristic properties, do you suppose that this makes many subsistences and many human beings? For you have not surely arrived at such a degree of stupidity that you do not know that the soul is one thing in substance and the body another, and that the body maintains a different rationale regarding substance. But if, according to you, each substance receives a particular characteristic subsistence, then it is already devoid of union for me, and the one has become two, as it has seemed to you and to your empty subtleties." But if I, being composed of different substances, am not two men...

but have two substances, those of the soul and of the body, and am considered in one subsistence, what necessity is there that one confessing two substances in Christ must also say there are two particular subsistences? For the divine things ^A pertain to Him, and the human things pertain to Him through the subsistential union; for His own flesh exists not in another, but in Him, as has been said before; for the flesh, having this common property of the human substance—namely, to be animated by a rational soul—had its particularity in the God Word alone, that is, it is the flesh of the God Word and not of another. How then is it another subsistence, if it does not at all subsist by itself?

Furthermore, let them not ignore this, that the term "subsistence" has often been understood by the holy Fathers to mean "substance," as it seems to St. Cyril; for in his third anathema he says: "If anyone in the one Christ distinguishes subsistences after the union." For here "subsistence" indicates existence; for the God-bearer would not here have called them subsistences in the one Christ, ^B always battling against the blasphemies of Nestorius, had he not accepted them as meaning substances. Similarly, St. Athanasius also says in his letter to the Africans: "The subsistence is substance, and has no other signification than the very 'being' (ὄν);" which Jeremiah calls "existence" (ὕπαρξιν), saying: *And they did not hear the voice of existence* (Jer. x, 10). For the subsistence and the substance are existence; for they "are" and "exist." If therefore anyone calls substances "subsistent" according to this definition, that is, "existing," we do not at all contradict them. For subsistence does not differ in the "being" (τῷ εἶναι) from substance, but in the "common being"—I mean concerning substance; but subsistence is particular when, along with the general, it has something ^C particular. Therefore, we do not say that our substance in Christ is "subsistent" in the sense that it is a subsistence characteristic and personal in itself, but in so far as it exists and is. For sometimes "subsistence" indicates "existing"—that is, substance, as has been proven—when it is deprived of characteristic properties and those considered in a person.

From the Defenses of Eulogius on the same chapter.

That which is considered commonly and in many, in such a way as to belong to no one more or less, is called "substance." Since, therefore, it belongs equally to every individual man to be flesh animated by a rational soul, which is humanity, according to this we say that humanity, representing two natures, is one substance, inasmuch as it is considered by a common and equal reason in all men. But in the subsistence of Emmanuel, we say that the union of divinity and humanity has not constituted one substance; ^D for it would be necessary to be considered in many, as has been proven. If, therefore, they say that the two have become one substance, surely others must have partaken of such a substance, and equally with Emmanuel.

And these sycophants—however much they may wage war against God—must not be permitted to descend into such madness that they construct this ^A argument, nor must they be so deranged as to declare that there is some other Emmanuel, which is not the case.

And after other things: We call humanity, being composed of dissimilar things, a single substance—not looking to the difference of soul and body, but to the common element, because it is seen commonly in all that are referred to it. For this is the definition of substance, as Basil taught, saying that as the common relates to the particular, so substance relates to the hypostasis. According to this notion of commonality, therefore, we say the humanity in men is of one substance, because it belongs commonly and equally to all men individually to be a rational animal, capable of intelligence and discipline; for this is the definition of humanity. When, however, we calculate the things of which it consists, and we name the soul and consider the body, we by no means deny that each is of a different nature, and that the properties of these substances remain even after the union. For if the body and the soul were of the same substance—since the same principle applies to coessential things—but the body is corruptible, it would follow ^B necessarily that the soul also perishes, and the assertion that the soul is immortal would be proven false by your senseless triflings.

From the Apologies of Eulogius.

man, the same one, which in the case of those [others] we cannot strictly say. For property and in truth Christ is God, and therefore strictly and in truth we call the holy Virgin Theotokos; and strictly and in truth the same one is man, truly having died and truly having risen. For this reason, it is impossible to call him simply one nature. Therefore, we also say that he consists of two natures, since we know he is composed of divinity and humanity, and we recognize the components to be distinct. ^B And we say there are two natures distinct in him, since we believe the same one to be truly God and man; just as the saintly Cyril says in his second letter to Succensus, "One and the same being this and that." And observe that he does not say "consisting of this and that" (for this would be true), but "being this and that." For "this and that" are in every respect two, even if you are unwilling [to admit it]. Again, the same person writes thus to Valerian, the bishop of Iconium: "Therefore, we profess that the flesh is from flesh, and God from God; but because of the same one, Christ is both, being one Son and one Lord with his own flesh." And what is it to say that Christ is both, if not that there are two natures in Christ? For he did not say there that Christ is from both, but that Christ is both, while being one.

From the Defenses of Eulogius against those who say: "If you speak of two substances, that is, natures, having been united, it must follow that one nature has been produced; for things that are united entirely become one thing." ^C If indeed they wish to maintain that the becoming one thing occurs according to the characteristic hypostasis, they dogmatize rightly and very piously and in harmony with the Fathers at Chalcedon. For they too declare one hypostasis, but two substances. For the flesh remained flesh, even if it became the flesh of the Word of God—that is, he has assumed flesh and united it to himself inseparably. For he did not undergo a change into flesh; for the nature of the Trinity is immutable God. As I said, therefore, there remained two substances, unconfused, in Emmanuel, the one Christ, the Son of God, after the incarnation. But if they say that the two natures have become one substance, they deceive themselves and fall into error, assuming a confusion or change, as if one had been changed into the other or confused with the other. For that things which are united are preserved without change and without confusion in their own quantity, this I shall clearly show you by the example of the three hypostases, which are united indivisibly and inconfusely according to substance—I mean the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. ^D For not because they are united have they become one hypostasis; but they are indeed united according to substance, yet they are recognized as existing in three united hypostases. So too, in the economy of Christ, there exist two substances united indivisibly and inconfusely. Let this example be brought forward only to show that the dispute is empty; since the union in Christ is not the same as that of the

^A Trinity. For there, regarding the Trinity, there is indeed one "other" and "other"—that we might not confuse their subsistences—but not one "different" and "different," for the three are one and the same in divinity. But in Emmanuel, divinity is one thing and humanity is another, so that we might not confuse their essences; for that which is timeless is not the same as that which is in time, nor is the visible the same as the invisible. But it is not said that there is "one" and "one" [other], heaven forbid; for both, through the union, were constituted as one person and one characteristic subsistence.

From the Eulogian Defenses

^B Let them not, therefore, provide trouble for us—those who wish to conceive of nothing sound, but who prattle on in vain and attempt to disturb the right and blameless faith. For we worship one Christ, the Son of God, who appeared in the flesh to those who dwell on the earth; yet we acknowledge a distinction between the divinity and the flesh. For God the Word is timeless, uncreated, impassible, and possesses all that befits the divine majesty. But His flesh, being something that exists in relation to Him by reason of the extreme and hypostatic union—due to which the inspired John cries out, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"—is temporal, created, and passible. We confess that all these properties of the flesh also belong to God the Word; for if it is His own flesh, it is evident that the properties of the flesh will also be His. He makes them His own, ^C even if His divine nature is not subjected to them. For the divine Scripture instructs us that, after the incarnation, all properties of His flesh are the properties of God the Word. For it says: "We have seen the Lord," referring to both together. For he who has seen the flesh of Christ has seen the whole, even if His divinity is by nature invisible. And again, "They would not have crucified the Lord of glory," divine nature, of course, not suffering, but through His own flesh. We are taught, therefore, in all these things, that when God the Word became incarnate, both divine and human properties were His. But in those instances where it is said that Christ hungered, thirsted, was touched, or suffered, I understand that He did not experience these things in His divine nature, but in the flesh which He had assumed, and through which He conversed as a man.

S. Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, from Book III, Adversus Novatianos. Phot. Cod. 280.

By F. Francisco Combefis, translator. Biblioth. Concionat. t. V, p. 127.

As to what the Apostle says: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," he does not mean by this that the sacrifice is altogether abolished; rather, he refers only to that which is performed by the rite of the law. He not only forbids that sacrifice of that kind, but also threatens the supreme judgment to those who, after having known the truth and having been blessed with the mystical sacrifice, return again to the legal sacrifice, which is provided by the immolation of calves and goats. And Paul speaks in this spirit, that he might recall the Jews, who had already come to Christ, from the observance of the legal rites. As, therefore, he forbids them the legal baptisms, so too does he forbid them the bloody sacrifices. For the Jews, when the guilt of sin constrained them, were first indeed expiated, then washed with water and dipped, and finally offered bloody host-victims. From these, the Apostle, calling them away, [warns them] also of the terrible [judgment].

For it was necessary that the true host, having been offered once for sins at the consummation of the ages (namely, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, having been sacrificed), should no longer remain, but should cease to be offered, those many legal and typical hosts for sins. For by the testimony of the same Apostle, it is impossible for sins ^A to be taken away again by the blood of bulls and goats, the Lamb of God having been sacrificed once. For by one oblation, he says, he perfected forever those who are sanctified. ^B In what way, therefore, is it impossible for sins to be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats? He says to the same effect the following: For if we sin willfully, etc. For that which is performed among us, the tremendous sacrifice of the Lord's body, is not an offering of other hosts, but a memorial of that which was once offered. Do this, he says, in my commemoration. And: As often as you do this, you show the death of the Lord.

Commentary of Pope Eulogius of Alexandria on that passage: "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"

^C When the Lord asked Peter, saying, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" he was not asking because he who knows all things wanted to learn; but he was doing this in order to manifest how great a solicitude he had for the flock which he was about to commit to Peter. For when he set over the flock him who burned with the greatest love for the Lord, he was clearly declaring the vehemence of his own affection toward his sheep. For this same cause he asks him three times, namely, that he might manifest the greatest care which he has for rational sheep; but he describes also in that first questioning certain degrees of those who are fed: he commands him first to feed the lambs; then the little ewes, which, though they were formerly sheep, afterward, through certain lapses, had been diminished in virtue and perfection and reverted into the order of little ewes; then at last he brings in the perfect sheep. Now, those who still have need of milk and elementary doctrine are likened to lambs; those who through certain offenses have been diminished in perfection, to little ewes; those who have ascended to the perfection of faith and life, to sheep. See, moreover, how he puts the imperfect before the perfect: the Lord’s primary goal was the salvation of sinners. For I came not, he says, to call the just, but sinners to repentance.

Of Saint Eulogius of Alexandria on that passage: "A pair of turtledoves."

^D Though there were many animals which were held in the class of the clean, why were only five sacrificed by the ancients, namely: a he-goat, and a ram, and an ox, and a turtledove, and a pigeon? By this, Scripture signifies that we ought to offer to God our pure senses, which hold the same number.

Of Saint Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria.

By the mention of the dogs, the parable convicts the extreme cruelty of the rich man. For the dogs, moved by compassion at the grave calamity of Lazarus, showed him what kindness they could, licking his sores and as it were wiping them away with their tongues. But the rich man, compared to the dogs in his behavior [toward the poor man], was

^A even harder than they, and was convicted by the very dogs themselves. For this reason, also, the fire pursues him implacably.

Eulogius of Alexandria

God receives these things also through the poor, provided that from now on we take care not to sin. For it is good, even if it be through money gathered by greed, to acquire as friends those who are needy in this world, but rich toward God; so that when we fail, having no righteousness of life, those who have received mercy may receive us into their own tabernacles, because of the benefits bestowed upon them. But if we are unwilling to do good even with the mammon of unrighteousness, that is, of greed, who would believe that if we had wealth acquired by our own labors, we would mercifully relieve the needy with it? For if we are unwilling to share even those things which are not ours, and which we possess greedily without any labor ^B, how could we be believed to be going to share with anyone those things which seem to be our own and the fruits of our own labors?

Mai, Bibl. Nova Patrum, III, 104.

Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria

"Forgiven" is applied to baptism, but "covered" is applied to repentance. The phrase, *and to whom the Lord shall not impute*, is an explanation of the word "to cover"; for true repentance covers sins, so that they are not reckoned by God. ^C

Regarding the lost works of Saint Eulogius, read what Photius has in the *Bibliotheca*, codices ccxxv, ccxxvi, ccxxx, cclxxx, in volume CIII of this Patrologia.

YEAR OF OUR LORD 596. ST. SYMEON THE YOUNGER.

DE S. SYMEONE STYLITA IN MONTE MIRABILI PROPE ANTIOCHIAM SYRIÆ, COMMENTARIUS PRÆVIUS CONR. JANNINGHI, SOCIETATIS JESU.

(BOLLAND. Act. Sanct. t. V Maii, p. 298.)

§ 1. Trium ejusdem nominis Stylitarum diversitas, cognomina, et cultus.

1. The practice of the Greeks, current in their churches from the Sunday of Septuagesima until the octave of Pentecost, in the Canon of the Friday before Quinquagesima Sunday—when the memory of all the saints and God-bearing Fathers who shone forth with singularity in monastic exercise is kept—proposes that the more famous of them be lauded individually and in alphabetical order through a sufficiently long Canon. ^A In the sixth ode, third strophe, of this canon (which Baronius also mentions at the year 842, no. 27), four Symeons are commemorated as follows: "A four-rayed Heaven appeared on earth; through this doubling of the name of Symeon, there are three on [their] columns, and one is the Salvation." This homonymy of two sets of two Symeons appeared on earth as a heaven distinguished by four luminaries, of whom three lived on columns [and] one is called "Salvation." The last is venerated on the 1st of July. ^B Two of the Stylites are most well-known, even among the Moschus [monks] and all others who use the Greek rites: the Senior, on January 5th among the Latins, and on September 1st among the Greeks; the Junior, unknown in Latin calendars until the renovation of the Martyrology performed by Baronius, has a most celebrated festival throughout the whole East on May 24th. I do not know on what authority he is listed by the same Baronius on September 5th, with the settled opinion that this is the one whom the Greeks themselves celebrate on the very Calends [of September]. The third of the Stylites, with the titles of Presbyter and Archimandrite, is thus far known to us almost only by name; for it is not sufficiently established that he is the one who lived in Cilicia and died struck by lightning, whom John Moschus lauded in the *Pratum Spirituale*; the Greeks recall his memory on July 27th.

2. The distinction of at least three Symeons was so well known throughout the East that it even extended to the Copts or Egyptian Christians; this was apparent from their calendars, published by John Selden, *Lib. de Synedriis Hebræorum c. 15*, at the end of the Gospels, written very beautifully in Arabic in Egypt in the year of the martyrs 1002, that is, 1286 of Christ; and they are listed therein as follows: 4 of the month Vhot or September 1st, Symeon the Detained, the reason for whose surname does not easily appear; 29 of the month Bachnes or May 24th, Saint Symeon the Great; 3 of the month Musre, that is, July 27th, Symeon the Stylite. Likewise, on the same days they are also listed in the Syriac Calendar which, for our Fathers Henschenius and Papebrochius, at Rome in the Maronite college, D. Joseph, an alumnus of the same college, dictated in Latin in this manner: "Death of Saint Symeon the first of the Stylites, Saint Symeon... Saint Symeon the Stylite." And in almost the same way, with points even noted for the second name, in the place of a word missing and worn away by use, they are found in Selden, likewise where supra, in another calendar which Mahumed Achmed Calcasendius compiled concerning the festivals of the Copts, where the names are read as follows: 1 September Symeon the Stylite, 22 for May 24th Festival of Symeon, 27 July Festival of Symeon the Stylite: and indeed at September 14th is added, unknown to all others, the festival of Symeon the Stylite; and Selden added in his own hand, "of the other or the Junior"; how correctly, let him judge for himself. In the Arab-Egyptian Martyrology, which was interpreted for the same Fathers by Gratia Simonius, then an alumnus of that same college, now Archbishop of Tripoli in Syria, there is only found the Memory of the holy Father Symeon the Miraculous, ascribed to May 24th. ^C Leo Allatius, who has done the best service regarding the writings of the Symeons, dealing with the Junior, says: "The modern Greeks, in order to distinguish the first from this second one, call the first Symeon 'he of the mandra', [and] this second one 'he of the Wonderful Mountain'": in any case, by the place in which each ended the final day of his life, each on his own column; the first farther from Antioch, between that [city] and Aleppo, as is witness to this one who recently still saw the column, the Friar Antonius Gonzales the Minorite: the second not far ^D