An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

and in proportion to our capacity, he disclosed the knowledge of himself. Therefore, we embrace, acknowledge, and venerate all things that have been handed down to us through the law and the prophets, and the apostles and evangelists, and we seek nothing beyond these. For since God is good, he is in truth the author and bestower of every good thing, and is subject neither to envy nor to any passion. For envy is far removed from the divine nature, seeing that it is devoid of all perturbation and is alone good. Therefore, as one who knows all things and provides what is beneficial for each person, he has revealed what was useful for us to know, but he has kept silent concerning that which surpassed our strength and capacity. Let us, then, be content with these things and abide by them, not moving the ancient boundaries ^A nor overstepping the divine tradition.

Chapter II

Concerning what things can be expressed in speech, and what cannot; and concerning those which fall into knowledge, and those which escape knowledge.

It is necessary, therefore, that anyone who wishes to speak or hear about God should clearly know that not all things concerning theology and the economy are unutterable, nor are they all utterable; likewise, not everything is unknown, nor is everything known. For the "knowable" is one thing, and the "utterable" is another; just as speaking is one thing, and knowing is another. Therefore, many things concerning God that are understood obscurely cannot be expressed in a manner befitting the subject; but we are compelled to use human terms when speaking of things involving the divine, just as when we use words such as sleep, wrath, and negligence, or hands, feet, and other things of this sort when speaking of God.

And regarding what we can both understand and speak of: indeed, that God is without beginning or end, that He is eternal and everlasting, uncreated, immutable, unchangeable, simple, ^B devoid of composition, incorporeal, invisible, intangible, uncircumscribed, and infinite; that He escapes all knowledge; that He is greater than any thought, incomprehensible, good, just, the creator of all creatures, omnipotent, all-encompassing, the inspector of all, provider for all, supreme authority, and finally judge: these things, I say, we both know and confess. And likewise, that there is one God—that is to say, one substance—and that He is recognized and exists in three persons, I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are in every respect one, ^C except for the properties of being unbegotten, of generation, and of procession; and that the only-begotten Son and Word of God, being God, for the sake of the depths of His mercy and for our salvation, by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, was conceived without seed, and was born without corruption of the Holy Virgin and Theotokos Mary by the Holy Spirit.

^A and became perfect man from her. The same is at once perfect God and perfect man, with two natures, endowed with intellect, will, faculty of action, and power of self-determination, and, simply to speak, possessing all that belongs to each by nature, and ^B in one composite hypostasis. And that He hungered, and thirsted, and grew weary, and was crucified, and endured the experience of death and burial for three days, and ascended into the heavens, whence He came to us, and shall come again hereafter—this both the divine Scripture witnesses, and the whole choir of saints.

What the essence of God is, or how it is in all things, or how the only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself, became man ^C from virginal blood, being fashioned by another law than nature, or how He walked with dry feet upon the waters, we do not know, and we are unable to say. It is not possible, therefore, to say anything about God, or to conceive of Him at all, beyond what has been declared and told to us by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testaments.

CHAPTER III. Demonstration that God exists.

That God exists, for those who accept the Holy ^D Scriptures—the Old and New Testaments, I say—is not a matter of doubt, nor is it for most of the Gentiles. For as we have said, the knowledge of existence of God is naturally implanted in us. But because the wickedness of the evil one has prevailed so much against the nature of man that it has cast some into a most foolish and—worse than any evil—a pit of destruction, so that they deny that God exists (whose senselessness the interpreter of divine words, David, made manifest, saying: *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God*), therefore the disciples of the Lord and the apostles, schooled by the All-Holy Spirit and performing divine signs by His power and grace, drew them out from the gulf of ignorance with the net of miracles and brought them to the light of the knowledge of God. Likewise also those who by the grace of these men...

became successors in dignity and office, shepherds and teachers, having received the illuminating grace of the Spirit, both by the power of miracles and by the word of grace, used to enlighten those who were in darkness and bring back those who had wandered. But we, who have received neither the gift of miracles nor the gift of teaching—for we have made ourselves unworthy through our ^A over-fondness for pleasures—come, let us discuss a few of the things that the interpreters of grace have handed down to us on this subject, having first implored the help of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The first argument for the existence of God: from the mutability of things.

Everything that exists is either created or uncreated. If created, then it is certainly also mutable. For those things whose existence began from change are necessarily subject to change, whether they perish or whether, by acts of will, they become one thing after another. If, however, they are uncreated, it follows logically that they are altogether immutable. For of those things whose existence is opposite in nature, their mode of being and their properties are also opposite. Who, therefore, would not agree that all things that exist, as many as fall under our perception—and, indeed, even angels—are subject to change and transformation and are moved in many ways? By the intelligible realm I mean angels, souls, and demons; these are subject to change in accordance with their will, whether they advance in the good or retreat from it, whether they intensify or relax their efforts. All other things, however, are subject to change in terms of generation and corruption, growth and decline, change in quality, and local motion. ^B Being, therefore, mutable, they are necessarily also created. And being created, they were necessarily made by some creator. But the creator must be uncreated. For if he too were created, he would necessarily have been created by someone, and so on, until we arrive at something uncreated. The creator, therefore, being uncreated, is altogether immutable. And what else could this be but God?

The second argument: from their conservation and governance.

Furthermore, the very structure, conservation, and governance of created things teaches us that there is a God, who has fashioned this universe, supports and preserves it, and provides for it. For how could it have come to pass that natures warring with one another—I mean fire and water, air and earth—should have come together for the constitution of a single world, and clung together in such a tenacious bond that they cannot be dissolved in any way, unless some omnipotent power had bound them together and perpetually preserved them from dissolution?

The third argument: from the ordered situation of things.

The world was not put together by chance and spontaneously, contrary to the Epicureans. What is it that governs things in heaven and things on earth, things that traverse the air and things that dwell in the waters—nay, even the things that are prior to these, ^C heaven and earth and air and the nature of fire and water; what is it that mixed these and divided them; what is it that moved these and leads them in their ceaseless course and

under no impediment? Is it not the artisan of these, and the Word, by whom the whole is borne and governed? Who is the artisan of these? Is it not he who made them and brought them into existence? For we shall not assign such power to chance. ^A Let it be granted, if you will, that they came into existence by chance: whose task is it to arrange them? Whose is it to preserve and guard them in accordance with those primary laws by which they were first established? It is another's, surely, than chance. And what else is this if he be not God?

CHAP. IV.

That God exists, and that He is incomprehensible.

^B That God exists is clear. But what He is in His essence and nature is absolutely and entirely incomprehensible. For that He is incorporeal is manifest. How can that be a body which is infinite and boundless, and has no form, and cannot be touched, and is invisible, and simple, and uncompounded? How, moreover, can He be immutable, if He be circumscribed and subject to passion? And who could be essentially devoid of passion, if He were compounded of elements and resolved back into them? For composition is the beginning of strife; and strife, of dissension; and dissension, of dissolution; and dissolution is altogether foreign to God.

How, then, shall that be sustained which is said in Scripture, that He traverses and fills all things? ^C "Do not I fill heaven and earth? says the Lord" (Jerem. XXIII, 24). For it is impossible for a body to pass through bodies without being divided and dividing, and being intertwined and set in opposition, as happens with those liquid substances which mix and blend together.

But some say that there is an "immaterial body," like the so-called "fifth body" of the Greek philosophers—a thing which is impossible; for it must be moved, just as the heaven is. For they say that this is the fifth body. Who, therefore, is the one who moves this? For everything that is moved is moved by another. And that other, who is he? And so on, ^D to infinity, until we arrive at the unmoved, which is the divine.

For the first mover is not moved by another; and this is God. To this is added that what is moved must be circumscribed by place; and therefore God alone is devoid of motion, moving all things by His immobility. From which it is concluded that God must be considered incorporeal. ^A

*Incorporeal is not the essence of God.* — God is more aptly declared by negation than by affirmation. But not even this declares His essence, just as when we call Him unbegotten, beginningless, unchangeable, and incorruptible, and whatever else is said about God, or around God; for these do not signify what He is, but what He is not. Yet he who wishes to declare the nature of any thing must say what it is, not what it is not. But in the case of God, it is impossible to declare what He is in His essence; it is more appropriate to frame the discourse from the removal and negation of all things. For He is none of the things that exist; not because He does not exist at all, but because He is above all things that exist, and above existence itself. For if all things that exist have knowledge, that which is above knowledge is certainly also above essence; and conversely, that which is above essence is also above knowledge. ^B

*The divine is therefore infinite and incomprehensible*; and this alone of Him can be perceived and comprehended: His infinity and incomprehensibility. Whatever we say about God affirmatively does not show His nature, but the things around His nature. Even if you call Him good, or just, or wise, or whatever else you might say, you are not stating the nature of God, but things around His nature. There are, however, some things said affirmatively of God that have the force of a super-eminent negation; for example, when we speak of God as light, we do not conceive of the light itself, but that He is not darkness, but rather more excellent than light; and when we call Him light, we signify that He is not darkness. ^C

CAP. V.

That God exists, and that His essence cannot be comprehended, has been abundantly demonstrated. That He is one, and not many, is beyond controversy for those who place faith in the divine Scripture. For the Lord, with the law He gave to Israel, begins with these words: *I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.* And again He says: *Hear, O Israel: The Lord thy God, the Lord is one.* And through the prophet Isaiah: *For I, he says, am the first God, and I am hereafter; and besides me there is no God. Before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none, and besides me there is not.* And the Lord [also] in the Holy Gospels ^D

^A thus speaks to the Father: This is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God. But with those who do not yield to the divine Scripture, we shall reason in this way:

Syllogistic demonstration that there is one God.

God is perfect, and without defect, whether you consider goodness, or wisdom, or power; having no beginning or end, eternal, uncircumscribed, and, in a word, perfect in all things. If, therefore, we were to say there are many gods, it would be necessary for a distinction to be observed among the many. For if there were no distinction among them, one would be more correctly said to be, rather than many. But if there is a distinction among them, where, then, will that perfection be? For if there is any lack of perfection in respect to goodness, or power, or wisdom, or even by reason of time, in any one of them, then he would not be God. But the identity of all attributes proves one rather than many.

^B Furthermore, if there are many, how will uncircumscription remain safe and secure for them? For where there is one, the other will be absent.

And what more can be brought forward, but that if the world were governed by many, it would not fall apart, decay, and perish, since a struggle is commonly observed among those who govern? For indeed, distinction opens the way to fighting and contention. But if anyone says that each one presides over a part, I would ask of him who the author of this order was, and who allotted the command among them? For this one rather would be God. Therefore, God is one, perfect, uncircumscribed, the creator and maker of all, the sustainer and governor, superior to all perfection and prior to it.

Moreover, by nature also it is necessarily ordained that unity is the origin of duality ^C.

CAP. VI. Concerning the Word and the Son of God, a proof drawn from reason.

The difference and analogy between the divine Word and the human.

This one, then, and only God is not without a Word. But having a Word, he will not have it as something without substance, nor

^A as something that began to be, nor as something that will cease. For there never was a time when God was without the Word. But he always has his own Word, begotten from himself, not as our word is, insubstantial and dissipated into the air, but subsisting, living, perfect; not moving outside himself, but always existing in him. For where would he be, if he were to be outside Him? For because our nature is mortal and easily dissolved, for this reason our word also is insubstantial. But God, being eternal and perfect, will have his own Word also perfect and subsistent, and always existing, and living, and possessing all things that the Begetter possesses. For just as our word, proceeding from the mind, is neither altogether the same as the mind, nor yet entirely different; for, being from the mind, it is different from it, but in bringing the mind itself into the light, it is no longer entirely different from the mind, but being ^B one by nature, it is different in the subject; so too the Word of God ^C, by the fact that it subsists in itself, is distinguished from Him from whom it derives its subsistence. But the fact that it shows in itself those things which are contemplated in God, shows that it is the same as Him by nature. For just as that which is perfect in all things is contemplated in the Father, so also is it contemplated in the Word begotten from Him.

CAP. VII. Concerning the Holy Spirit, proof derived from reason.

The distinction of the divine Spirit from the human. — It is necessary that the Word also should have a Spirit. For indeed our own word is not devoid of spirit. But in our case, the spirit is alien to our essence. For it is a drawing of air and ^D since no impulse exists without spirit. But as the Spirit of his mouth, the impulse.

^A is, because it is drawn in and poured out for the maintenance of the body. Which, at the time of speech, becomes voice, revealing the power of the word. But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and not composed in any way, the Spirit of God must be confessed as being, because the Word is not ^B less than our word. Nor is it some alien thing entering into God from without, as is the case with us who are composed. But just as when we hear of the Word of God, we do not imagine it to be something without substance, or something acquired by learning, or something emitted by voice and poured out into the air, but think of it as subsisting substantially, and as free-willed, and active, and ^C all-powerful; in the same way, when we have learned of the Spirit of God, the companion of the Word, and manifesting His activity, we do not conceive of an unsubstantial breath. For thus would the greatness of the divine nature be brought down to humiliation, if we were to suppose that the Spirit, who is in it, were similar to our own spirit; but as a substantial power, which is itself considered in its own proper and distinct ^D person, and proceeds from the Father, and rests in the Word, and is its manifestor, neither able to be separated from God in whom it is, nor from the Word whom it accompanies, nor pouring itself out into non-existence, but subsisting according to the likeness of the Word as a person, living, endowed with free-will, active, always willing what is good, and having power concomitant with the will for every purpose, having neither beginning nor end. For the Father never lacked the Word, nor the Word the Spirit.

On the Orthodox Faith, Book I

Thus, by reason of the unity of nature, the polytheism of the heathens and the Judaism of the Jews are ^A blasted away.

[alt-version omitted]

Notes

Thus too the Holy Spirit, as an impulse and movement, is more internal to that supernatural essence. Just as the Holy Spirit is like an impulse and an internal movement of that supernatural substance. But even according to Tully, "impulse" signifies the motion of the will, which denotes desire as well as endeavor. According to Clement of Alexandria, Book VI of the *Stromata*, both are virtues of the mind: knowledge and impulse, or desire. Wherefore Augustine did not teach amiss that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son.

(9) "And resting in the Word," etc. The great Cyril in many places says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is in the Son, and remains, and also that it exists as ^B if it were naturally rooted in Him. Nor did they desire anything else for themselves, unless the Holy Spirit were not to be sent to created things, but that it be joined by relationship, if I might say so, to the Father's Son, so that just as the Son is in the bosom of the Father, so the Spirit might rest in the bosom of the Son. "As His power and natural operation, and living," says the same doctor, *Dialogue to Hermias*. For neither, says the Theologian, oration 44, is it so arranged that either the Father lacks the Son, or the Son the Holy Spirit. ^C But rather it is fitting for the Holy Spirit that it should be one with the principle, that is, with the Son, whom elsewhere he calls the principle from the principle, and the principle of all things, because, of course, all things were made through Him. What follows, and makes His own manifestation clear, signifies this statement of Christ: "He will glorify me, because He will receive of mine, and will announce it to you": and likewise, "He will bear witness ^D concerning me." Thus, below, our author says that the Father is the sender of the Spirit who manifests Him. Elsewhere he declares the name "manifestation," or "illumination," as of light from light, the procession of one person from another.

^A And in this way, by the unity of nature, the error of the Gentiles who assert many gods is removed; and conversely, by admitting the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overturned. There remains what is useful in each sect: from the Jewish supposition, the unity of nature; from that of the Gentiles, the distinction in persons only.

If the Jew should contradict and refuse to admit the Word and the Spirit, let him be refuted and silenced by the testimony of divine Scripture. For concerning the Word, the divine David says: *For ever, O Lord, thy Word standeth in heaven* (Ps. CXVII, 89). And again: *He sent his Word, and healed them* (Ps. CVII, 20). But the word that is uttered by the mouth is not sent, nor does it remain for ever. ^B Concerning the Spirit, the same David says: *Thou shalt send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created* (Ps. CIII, 30). And in another place: *By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the power of them by the Spirit of his mouth* (Ps. XXXII, 6). Also Job: *The Spirit of the Lord that made me is the almighty breath that protects and preserves me* (Job XXXIII, 4). Furthermore, the Spirit that is sent, that makes, establishes, protects, and preserves, is not some evanescent breath, just as the mouth of God is not a bodily member; for both of these must be understood in a manner worthy of God.

CHAPTER VIII. De sancta Trinitate.

We believe, therefore, in one God, one principle, ^C lacking principle, uncreated, unbegotten, knowing no end or death, eternal, immense, uncircumscribed, defined by no boundaries, of infinite power, simple, incomposite, incorporeal, free from flux, passion, and all mutation and alteration, invisible, the fountain of all goodness and justice, an intellectual and inaccessible light, a power comprehensible by no measure, which its own will alone measures (for it can do whatever it wills), the maker of all things, both visible and invisible; the preserver of all, providing for all, containing and ruling all, holding an everlasting and immortal kingdom over all, having nothing contrary, filling all, not contained by any thing, but rather containing the universe itself ^D and holding and anticipating it, penetrating all substances without defilement, far more advanced than all things and essences, as it is supersubstantial and more sublime than all beings; superior in divinity, goodness, and fullness; appointing all principalities and orders, set above every principality and order; higher than essence, life, word, and thought; being itself light, itself goodness, itself life, itself essence, as not having existence from another, that is, of those things that are; but being itself the fountain of existence to those that are, of life to those that live, of reason to those who partake of reason, to all...

^A goods the cause; foreknowing all things before they come to be; one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one lordship, one kingdom, known in ^B three perfect subsistences, and worshipped with one worship, believed in and adored by every rational creature, united without confusion and divided without separation—a mystery and a wonder! Into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in whom we also have been baptized. For thus did the Lord charge his apostles to baptize, saying: *Baptizing them* in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Into one Father, the origin and cause of all things, ^B who has not been begotten of any, being without cause and unbegotten, existing of himself; the maker of all things, but the Father of one only by nature, of his only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and the producer of the all-holy Spirit. And into one Son of God, the only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all ages; light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. When we say "before all ages," we show his generation is without beginning. ^C

Concerning what must be believed about the Father. Concerning the Son.

In one Father (we believe) is the beginning of all things and the cause, begotten of none, who alone is without cause and generation: the creator, indeed, of all things; but the Father of the only-begotten Son of his, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the producer of the most holy Spirit according to a single nature. And in one Son of God, the only-begotten, our Lord, born of the Father before all ages; light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. ^D Whom when we call "before all ages," we demonstrate his generation...

^A to be timeless and without beginning; for the Son of God was not brought into being from non-existence, [he who is] the radiance of the glory, the stamp of the Father's subsistence, the living wisdom and power, the subsistent Word, the substantial and perfect and living image of the invisible God, but he was always with the Father, and in him, eternally and without beginning begotten of him. For there was never a time when the Father was not, when the Son was not; but [there was] simultaneously Father and Son, he who was begotten of him; for a Father could not be called [Father] apart from a Son. And if he had been without a Son, he would not have been a Father; and if after this he had a Son, after this he became a Father, not being a Father before this, and he changed from not being a Father to becoming a Father—which is more grievous than every blasphemy. For it is impossible to call God destitute of natural fruitfulness. And fruitfulness consists in this, that one should beget from oneself, that is, from one's own substance, an offspring similar by nature to oneself.

The differences between divine generation and creation.

NOTE.

On the Orthodox Faith Book I.

^A Therefore, in God, who alone is free from all suffering, change, and alteration, and who always remains the same, both generation and creation are free from suffering. For since He is not susceptible to suffering, nor is His nature in flux—being simple and composite—He can undergo neither suffering nor flux, whether in generating or in creating, nor does He require anyone’s help or assistance. But generation is without beginning and eternal, as it is a work of nature and proceeds from His own substance, so that the one who generates does not undergo change, and so that God who is prior might not be a God who is posterior, and so that He might not receive an addition. But creation in God—it being a work of will—is not co-eternal with God. For it is not in the nature of things that what is produced out of nothing should have the same eternity or perpetuity as that which is without beginning and eternal. Therefore, just as the manner of action of man and God is not the same; because man produces nothing out of nothing, but rather makes what he makes from a pre-existing ^B and subject matter; and not only does he will, but he also first thinks, and shapes in his mind what is to be made, and then also works with his hands, and undergoes labor and toil, and often even fails, if the outcome does not correspond to the project; but God, by will alone, has brought all things from nothing into being. Thus, God and man do not generate in the same way either. For God, being timeless, and beginningless, and impassible, and immutable, and incorporeal, and alone, and eternal, and without end, generates timelessly, and without beginning, and immutably, and without union ^C and without suffering, and without flux. And His incomprehensible generation has neither a beginning nor an end. And it is without beginning because it is timeless; it is without flux because it is impassible and incorporeal; it is without union because it is incorporeal; and it is—that there might be one God in no need of another—without end, and unceasing, because it is beginningless, and timeless, and endless, and always remains the same; for that which is beginningless is endless, but that which has an end by grace—as do the angels—is not at all beginningless.

Impassible and incorporeal: God indeed, being in no need of another’s labor; and since He is without beginning, and time, and end, He always remains the same. For that which lacks a beginning and will never have an end is immortal; and that which is by the gift and grace of God without end does not entirely lack a beginning—a thing which can be perceived in the angels.

^A And so the eternal God begets His own Word, being perfect, without beginning and without end, so that God, whose nature and existence surpass all time, might not beget in time. But it is clear that man begets in a different manner, being subject to generation and corruption, and flux, and multiplication, and is clothed in a body; and he possesses both male and female in his nature. For the male is in need of the help of the female. But may He who is above all, and who transcends every mind and comprehension, be propitious to us.

On the Father and the Son.

The Word, therefore, and the radiance are so called because He was begotten of the Father without union, and without passion, and without time, and without flux, and inseparably. And He is called Son and the impress of the Father’s subsistence because He is perfect, and subsistent, and in all things like the Father, save for the ingenerateness. And He is called Only-begotten because He alone [(16)] was begotten only of the only Father, and in a unique way. For no other generation is likened to the generation of the Son of God. For there is no other Son of God. For even if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet it is not by way of generation, but by way of procession. This is another mode of existence, ^D incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son; for it is not in any way at all, but rather it is in a unique way—a unique mode, and not as bodies are. He is called Son the Son, because He is alone, and from the One alone, and in a unique way the only One, alone from the One alone, and... [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

not as proceeding ^A from his own generation, but from his procession. This other mode of existence is likewise incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Therefore, all that the Father has belongs to the Son, with this one exception, that He is not ingenerate: a word which denotes neither a difference in nature, nor dignity, but a mode of subsisting. Just as Adam, who is ingenerate (for he is a creature of God), and Seth, who is begotten (for he is the son of Adam), and Eve, who came forth from the side of Adam (for she was not begotten)—these do not differ from one another in nature (for they are all human beings), but only in the mode of their existence.

We must know that *agenēton* written with one *nu* signifies “uncreated,” that is, “not made.” But *agennēton* written with two *nu*s signifies “not begotten.” According to the first meaning, essence differs from essence, for another essence is uncreated—that is, *agenētos* by one *nu*—and another is generated, that is, created. But according to the second meaning, no difference of essence from essence is introduced; for the first individual of every species of living creature is ingenerate, yet it is not uncreated. For they were indeed brought forth by the Creator ^B, brought into being by His Word. Yet they were not begotten, for no other individual of the same species existed beforehand from which they could be begotten.

Concerning, therefore, the first meaning, the word *agenētos* applies to the three most divine persons of the holy Godhead; for they are co-essential and uncreated. But concerning the second, it is not so: the Father alone is *agennētos* (ingenerate); for He does not have His existence from another. And the Son alone is begotten (*gennētos*); for He is begotten of the Father’s essence, without beginning and outside of time. And the Holy Spirit alone is proceeding, from the Father’s essence, and not being begotten... ^C 136 As for the first signification, the word *agenētos* (uncreated) applies to the three most divine persons of the holy Godhead; for they are of the same substance and are uncreated. As for the second, however, it is not so: for the Father alone is ingenerate. Nor does He have it from another person that He exists. The Son alone is also begotten: for He is begotten of the Father’s substance without any beginning or time. The Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the Father’s substance.

NOTES

^A And it proceeds, not by generation, but by procession. For thus we are taught by divine Scripture, even though the mode of generation and procession can be comprehended by no power of the intellect.

It is also worth noting ^B that the names of paternity, filiation, and procession were not transferred from us to the blessed Godhead, but on the contrary, were communicated from thence to us, as the divine Apostle says: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” If, however, we say ^C that the Father is the beginning of the Son and greater, we do not signify that He is prior to the Son in time, or superior by nature, for through Him He made the ages; nor in any other respect, except that of cause—that is, that the Son was begotten of the Father, and not the Father of the Son; and that the Father is the cause of the Son naturally; just as we say that fire does not proceed from light, but rather light from fire. When, therefore, we hear that the Father is the beginning and is greater than the Son, let us understand it in respect of cause. And just as we do not say that fire is of one substance and light of another, so it is impossible to say that the Father is of one substance and the Son of another; but they are of one and the same. And just as we say that fire shines through the light proceeding from it, and we do not posit the light that proceeds from it as an instrumental tool of the fire, but rather as a natural power; so we say that the Father does all things that He does through His only-begotten Son.

[The beginning of this page follows from the previous page's ending.]

ON THE ORTHODOX FAITH BOOK I

^A and not as through a serving instrument, but by a natural and subsistent power. And just as we say that fire illuminates, and again we say that light illuminates, so everything that the Father does, the Son does likewise. But the light does not possess an existence separate from the fire; whereas the Son is a perfect hypostasis, inseparable from the paternal hypostasis, as we have shown above. It is impossible to find in created things an image that perfectly represents the mode of the Holy Trinity. For how can that which is created, composite, flowing, mutable, circumscribed, shaped, and corruptible clearly manifest the superessential divine essence, which is free from all these things? ^B It is evident that all created things are subject to most of these, and are so constituted by nature that they are liable to corruption.

We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son; who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, as being consubstantial and co-eternal; the Spirit of God, the right, the principal, the fountain ^C of wisdom, life, and holiness; God existing with the Father and the Son, and thus addressed; uncreated, full, creator, pantocrator, all-working, all-powerful, of infinite power, governing all creation and not governed by it; filling, and not filled; participating, and not participated in; sanctifying, and not sanctified; the Paraclete, that is, the Comforter, as one who receives the petitions of all; in all things like unto the Father and the Son; proceeding from the Father, and communicated through the Son, and received by all ^D creation, and by Himself creating, and giving existence and holiness to all things; subsisting in His own hypostasis; inseparable and unwithdrawable from the Father and the Son, and having all that the Father and the Son have, except the property of being unbegotten and begotten. For the Father is unbegotten, since He is not from anyone; for He has His existence from Himself, nor does He have anything of what He has from another; but rather He is the source and cause of the way things are for all. And the Son is begotten from the Father.

^A And the Holy Spirit also is from the Father, but not begotten: He is proceeding. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession; but as to what the manner of the difference is, we are completely ignorant. And simultaneous with this is the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit. Everything, therefore, that the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, including their very existence; and if the Father is not, then neither is the Son, nor the Spirit; and if the Father does not have something, then neither does the Son, nor the Spirit. And through the Father ^B (that is, through the fact that the Father exists), the Son and the Spirit have everything they have—that is to say, through the fact that the Father possesses them—except for the unbegottenness, the generation, and the procession. For it is in these hypostatic properties alone that the three holy hypostases differ from one another; they are not divided in essence, but are indivisibly distinguished by the character of their own proper ^C hypostasis.

We say furthermore that each of the three has a perfect hypostasis, so that we may not conceive of a single composite nature of perfect things from three imperfect ones; but rather, in three perfect hypostases, we perceive one simple, super-perfect, and primarily perfect essence. For everything that is composed from imperfect things is composite. ^D

^A And composition cannot occur from perfect hypostases. Whence we do not even call the species an hypostasis, but rather that which is in the hypostases. We have called them imperfect, as they do not preserve the species of the thing that is formed from them, but remain in the object. For a stone, and wood, and iron, each by itself is perfect according to its own nature; but in relation to the house that is formed from them, each exists as imperfect; nor is each of them by itself a house.

We affirm, then, the hypostases to be perfect, ^B so that we do not think of composition in the divine nature. For composition is the mother of division. But again, we speak of the three hypostases as being in one another, so that we do not introduce a multitude and crowd of gods. By the three hypostases, we acknowledge the uncompounded and unconfused; while by the fact that they are in one another, and by the identity of their will, and activity, and power, and authority, and movement—if I may say so—the indivisible, and the ^C one God we recognize. For there is one truly God, God, and the Word, and the Spirit ^D

NOTES

(25) *And again, in one another, etc.* He first explains why there is one essence of God, although there are three persons, and explains this from Basil and the Theologian. For Nyssen, in his epistle to Ablabius, attempts to solve this, using the reason that while the disciples of Scotus contend that there is one universal, common nature, we say that it is a certain abuse of custom that we call those who are by nature one, plural, by the very name of nature, and say that there are many men. To which it is similar if one were to say, there are many human natures. After a few words he adds: The reason for the Persons, because of the properties which are considered in each individual, receives division, and is viewed in number according to composition. *The nature is one, and united with itself, and indivisibly undivided, and is exactly a unity, which neither increases by addition, nor diminishes by subtraction.* But that which is, while it is one, although it persists in a multitude, indivisible, continuous, and whole, does not divide with the individuals who are its participants. He says that there is no danger, if, by the old custom and in the use of names, we call many men, but rather if we call them many gods. He argues the same from common notions. Regarding this opinion, it seems that there appeared a student from various works of the Catholics, in which they declared the Word to be consubstantial with the Father by such examples, that just as [the Son] is of the same essence in human beings as his father, so it is in divine things; as because Peter, John, and Philip are consubstantial, because they are of the same nature, so are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: although they acknowledged that these similarities do not equate to the reality, and in comparison strove to explain them. Yet the holy teachers demonstrated the equality, at least, of the Word with the Father, even if not likewise the indivisible unity of the divine substance, which is real beyond the exertion of the mind, whereas in human nature, any nature whatever is perceived by the intellect alone and becomes one, just as the Theologian teaches (orat. 37): *With us*, he says, *there is one humanity.* But there, the community of nature has unity only in thought, being abstracted and conceived by the intellect because of the similarity of the individuals. In the same way our author explains the distinction of created nature, so that it is evident to everyone that he has remained far from the sentiment of Nyssen. Nazianzenus also seems to have criticized this formerly (orat. 1), where he says that he has built polytheism, not only for Arius, but even for certain of our own who are too orthodox. Theodore Abucaras ought to be recalled to the sense of the Theologian and the Damascene, when he teaches (opusc. 2) that human nature is one in reality. For it means nothing else but that individual men are not so many common natures, or species: as for example, Peter is not a human species, or a universal nature. Not according to the dialectic of this author are essence, nature, and form the same as a common species. From which he infers that the word "man," if taken for the species and the common essence or nature, is not spoken of Peter, Paul, and John. I do not think that the words of Nyssen can be transferred to this subtler sense: for he perhaps wrote these things when, having neglected the study of theology for a while, he was occupied rather in reading the rhetorical flourishes of the rhetoricians. Regarding this matter Nazianzenus complains in a friendly way in his letter to Gregory himself. Moreover, from another chapter in the same letter to Ablabius, he seeks the perfect unity of the divine nature just as the Theologian and other Fathers do, from the fact that, to be sure, the three persons are not separated from one another by any section or interval, but their substance is one, and the movement of their will one, which indeed is moved from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is completed in the Spirit. He repeats this regarding the viewing power, whence the name God, which, since it is one in the three persons, is therefore one God and is so called.

On the distinction of the three persons; and on the thing, and reason, and thought.

^B It is necessary to know that it is one thing to be considered in reality, and quite another to be considered by reason and thought. For in all creatures, indeed, the distinction of persons is considered as a matter of reality. For by reality itself we consider Peter to be separated from Paul; but the commonality, the conjunction, and the unity [of nature] are perceived by reason and thought alone. For we conceive in the mind that Peter and Paul are of the same nature, and that they possess one common nature: for each of them is a rational and mortal animal; and each is flesh, endowed with a rational and intelligent soul. Therefore, this common nature is observable by reason. For the hypostases are not in one another, but each exists individually and separately—that is to say, by itself—having very many things that divide it from the other. For they are separated by place, they differ in time, they are divided by opinion, and by power, and by form (that is, by shape), and by habit, and by constitution, and by dignity, and by manner of life, and, in short, by all other properties by which they are recognized as by certain signs. But above all, they differ from one another in that they do not exist within one another, but separately. Whence it is also said that there are two, or three, or many men. ^C This is to be seen in all of creation. But in the holy and supersubstantial Trinity, which is beyond all things and beyond understanding, the matter is quite the reverse. For there, the commonality and the unity are considered in reality, because the persons are co-eternal, and because their essence, faculty, will, conspiracy of opinion, and also their authority, power, and goodness are one and the same. I said not similarity, but identity, and a single movement of operation. For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one faculty, one authority; one, I say, and the same—not three similar to one another, but one and the same motion of the three persons. For each of them has no less unity with the other than [each has] with itself. ^D For the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are altogether one and the same, except for the unbegottenness of the Father, the begottenness of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit. But as for that which is distinct in them, it is perceived by thought. For we know one God, while we understand the difference only in these properties: of the Fatherhood, and of the Sonship, and of the procession; and according to the cause, and the caused, and the perfection of the hypostasis—that is, the manner of existence. For it is not possible to speak of local distance, as with us, in the case of the incomprehensible Godhead; for the hypostases are in one another, not so as to be confused...

but so as to hold together, according to the word of the Lord, "I in the Father and the Father in me," ^A nor is there any difference of will, intention, energy, power, or any other thing which might cause a real and actual division in us. Wherefore we do not speak of three gods—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—but rather we maintain one God, the Holy Trinity, having reference to one cause ^B of the Son and of the Spirit, not being compounded, nor blended according to the contraction of Sabellius. For they are united as we have said, not so as to be confused, but so as to hold together, and they have an interpenetration in one another, exempt from all blending and commingling, and not divided by essence according to the division of Arius. For the Godhead is undivided in divided things, if I may speak briefly; and it is as it were a single tempering and conjunction of light in three suns clinging to one another without any ^C interval. Whenever, therefore, we look at the Godhead, and the first cause, and the monarchy, and the one and same motion, so to speak, and will of the Godhead, and the identity of essence, power, energy, and sovereignty, that which is in us is presented as one. But when we look at those in whom the Godhead exists, or to speak more accurately, which the Godhead is, and those which exist from that first cause without any interval of time and without any distinction or separation of glory—that is, ^D the persons—there are three that are worshipped. One Father, the Father, and without beginning, that is, without cause; for he is not from anything. One Son, the Son, not without beginning, that is to say, not without cause; for he is from the Father. But if you take the beginning from time, he is also without beginning; for he is the creator of times, not under time. One Spirit, the Holy Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, but not filially, but processionally, nor is the Father removed from his unbegottenness, because he has begotten, nor the Son from his generation, because he was begotten from the unbegotten (for how could he be?), nor is the Spirit to be turned into the Father, or into the Son, because he proceeds; for the property is unmoved, or how could property be unmoved if it were to change? For the Father, from whom and to whom those things are referred, is as one principle; according to this, he is one God.

^A For if the Father, where the Son is concerned, were the Son, he would not be the Father, since there is only one who is strictly Father. And if the Son were the Father, he would not be strictly the Son; since there is only one who is strictly Son, and one Holy Spirit.

(As it is from someone)—that is, the Son; and he himself is not without beginning, that is, he is not without cause (for he is from the Father); yet if you take "beginning" in terms of time, he is also free from beginning (for the Creator of times is not subject to time). Finally, there is the one Spirit: the Holy Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, yet not in the manner of filiation, but of procession; so that neither has the Father departed from the property of being unbegotten, because he begat; nor the Son from generation, in that he was born of the Unbegotten (for how could this be?); nor, finally, has the Spirit passed into the Father or into the Son, because he has proceeded and because, being God, he is immutable, if indeed it is property. ^B For in what other way would property consist for itself, if it were to move and pass into another? For if the Son were the Father, he would certainly not be Father in the proper sense (for only one is properly Father), and if the Father were the Son, he would not be Son in the proper sense: for only one is properly Son, and one is the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, it is worth knowing that we do not say the Father is from someone; but we call him Father of the Son. Likewise, we do not call the Son a cause, nor a Father; but rather we say that he is from the Father, and is the Son of the Father. Finally, we call the Holy Spirit both from the Father and the Spirit of the Father. And although we do not say that he is from the Son, we do call him the Spirit of the Son.

^B It is necessary to know that we do not say the Father is from someone; but we call him Father of the Son. We do not call the Son a cause, nor a Father; but we say that he is from the Father, and Son of the Father. And the Holy Spirit, we say is from the Father, and we name him the Spirit of the Father. But we do not say that the Spirit is from the Son; but we name him the Spirit of the Son.

^A For if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, says the divine Apostle, he does not belong to him. And we confess and acknowledge that He was manifested and imparted to us through the Son: For He breathed, he says, and said to his disciples, Receive the Holy Spirit. Just as from the sun there is both the ray and the radiance—for it is the source of both the ray and the radiance—but the radiance is imparted to us through the ray, and it is this that illumines us and is shared by us. And we do not say that the Spirit is from the Son, nor do we call the Spirit the Spirit of the Son.

CAP. IX.

On those things which are said about God.

[index: entries preserved]

^AFor if we were to say that the increate, and unoriginate, and incorporeal, and immortal, and eternal, and good, and creative, and such like, are substantial differences in God, He would be composed of so many things and would not be simple, but composite, which is the height of impiety to assert. Therefore, one must think that each of the things said of God does not signify what He is in His essence, but either shows what He is not, or expresses a certain relation to some of those things that are distinguished from Him, or indicates one of the things that accompany His nature or His operation.

QUI EST, Dei nomen maxime proprium.

Secundum nomen est Θεός.

^A For He saw all things even before they existed, having conceived of them from eternity; and each thing, according to His eternal will—which is predestination, image, and pattern—comes to pass in the predestined time.

The first, therefore, is indicative of His very being and of *what He is*; the second of His activity. And "unoriginate," "immortal," "unbegotten," or "uncreated," "incorporeal," and "invisible," and suchlike, do not indicate *what He is*—that is to say, they do not show that He began to exist—but rather that He does not perish, has not been created, is not a body, and cannot be seen. ^B But "good," "just," "holy," and the like, accompany the nature, but do not declare the essence itself. Furthermore, "Lord," "king," and similar terms, clearly indicate a relation to things distinguished from Him, for He is called Lord of those over whom He rules, and king of those over whom He holds royal power, and maker of those whom He creates: "Maker," "Creator," and "Author;" and Shepherd of those whom He feeds.

Chap. X. On Divine union and distinction.

All these things, therefore, are to be understood in common for the whole Godhead, and in the same way, and simply ^C and indivisibly and altogether conjunctly; but distinctly, Father and Son and Holy Spirit; and also that which is without cause and that which is by cause, and finally, the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding. These are not indicative of essence, but of the relation to one another 33 and of the mode of existence.

^A Having known these things, and being led by them toward the divine essence, we do not grasp the essence itself, but the things concerning the essence; just as, even if we know that the soul is incorporeal, without quantity, and without shape, we have not yet grasped its essence; nor, if we know that a body is white or black, do we thereby know its essence. The true Word teaches that the Divinity is simple, and that it has one simple operation, which is good and works all things in all, like a ray of the sun, which warms all things and works in each according to its natural aptitude and capacity to receive, having received such an operation from God the Creator.

^B The true doctrine teaches that the Divinity is simple... ^C ...the relations of the divine persons are founded in the origin of one from another, which being denied, no distinction occurs between them. Moreover, a divine person is not constituted by a relation in such a way that it is nothing else but a subsistent relation, but it is the divine substance, as if sealed by such a respect. For, as Basil says in his epistle to his brother Gregory, a hypostasis is a nature determined by a certain mark. Furthermore, this relation is not any perfection by which one person is adorned more than another. For the Theologian says (Orat. 34), "Nothing is wanting to the Son for Him to be the Father," for sonship is not a defect, and therefore procession does not indicate a defect, but a mere relation. From all of which the truth of this adage shines forth more brightly, which they say after Anselm: "All things in the divine are the same where no opposition of relation occurs."

^D These things overcome the error of the Palamites, who separated the light and operation of God from His substance; relying especially upon this argument, which John Cyparissiota and Emmanuel Calecas report, and indeed Symeon of Thessalonica, himself a Palamite, in his work *Against Heresies*: "We are taught by sacred oracles that we become partakers of the divine nature; but it is impossible for the divine nature to be communicated to a created thing; nor, indeed, are the divine hypostases communicated to creatures. Therefore, only the operation is communicated, such as life, love, wisdom, power, etc.," whence they inferred that the action of the Divinity is more properly named than its essence. This new dogma they especially fortified with the statement of Damascus, which is found below, lib. II, cap. 15; and lib. III, cap. 15: "It is one thing to be a power of acting, another to act, another to be the one who acts, and another that which is achieved by the operation." They boasted greatly in the authority of the Dionysian, who, nevertheless, in his *De divinis nominibus* cap. 5, suppressed their error, where he teaches that not only life, power, wisdom, and other things by which the action of God is signified are communicated to created things, but even the very being of God; nor is it the case that in God one thing is "the good" and another is "being," and another is "life" or "wisdom"; nor again are there many causes or many divinities. Than this nothing can be more express against the Palamites, who, while they professed one operation, held many in their minds, as Calecas shows. Thus, although they denied that God was composed of essence and operation, it was nevertheless deduced from their own principles, who would establish this—that "the essence has, the operation is had"—whence it follows that the essence of God would be the subject of the operation. Indeed, the paralogism by which they strove was that no one would say a man is composite because he has a nature and an efficiency, or because he has a nature and grammar, or the art of tilling fields. As if, forsooth, composition were not made from substance and accidents. But Damascenus not only forbade that a quality be attributed to God, but did not even admit composition from genus and difference. For he knew God to be a most simple and absolute unity, in which those things which are perceived as dispersed in inferior things are one, as Dionysius explains. Wherefore, Nicephorus of Constantinople, almost contemporary with our John, in his *Antirrheticus I* (not yet published against the Iconomachs), teaches that it is to be held with sincere religion that the eternal action of God, nay rather its consequent action, is in no way separated from His substance; and that it is of the same reason on account of the property of that simple and incorporeal nature. Wherefore Calecas, pondering that place of Damascenus where he says, "another..."

and it is another which is operated, and another that which is produced by the operation, observing that what is produced by a divine operation, and also the relation by which it is referred to God, are to be reckoned among created things, because they exist outside of God: but that the virtue itself by which God acts and His action are absolutely the same, and not separated from His essence, although they are distinguished in us. Let no one object against Damascenus in his sermon on the Transfiguration, that the light by which the Lord's body shone is called uncreated light. For that light does not signify anything besides the Word Himself, who is the true light illuminating every man, by whose presence the body of Christ was adorned with an immense light. Thus divine charisms, of which the Holy Spirit is the author, are called the Holy Spirit. The Palamite error, whose author was once that Simeon whom they called the Younger Theologian, was first proscribed in many synods; but afterwards it was approved, especially in the synod which they call the eighth general [synod], by reason of the four patriarchs who were present. In the Council of Florence the Latins wanted to dispute with the Greeks about essence and operation, but they [the Greeks] refused to do so.

^A Discretely, however, are all those things which pertain to the divine and most benevolent Incarnation of the Word of God ^B. For in these there were no parts of the Father and of the Holy Spirit at all, except as relates to their good pleasure, and to the ineffable miracle, which God the Word, having become man like unto us, was working, as the unchangeable God and Son of God.

CAP. XI.

Of those things which are said in a corporeal manner concerning God.

Since we find very many things in the divine Scripture spoken concerning God in a symbolic manner, under a figure akin to bodies, we must know that it is impossible for us who are men, and clothed with gross flesh, to understand or speak of those divine and exalted and immaterial energies of the Godhead, unless we use symbols and types and images conformable to our own nature. Wherefore, all those things which are spoken of God in a somewhat corporeal way, are said symbolically, and contain a higher meaning, ^C because God is simple and devoid of all figure. Therefore, by the eyes and the eyelids and the vision of God, let us understand His power that sees all things and His undeniable knowledge, which nothing can escape: so that, through the ministry of the senses, a more perfect and certain knowledge may come to us. By the ears and hearing, His propensity for forgiveness and His kindness in receiving our prayers; for we are accustomed, through this sense, to show ourselves disposed and easy to those who are suppliants to us, kindly inclining our ear to them. By the mouth and speech, the declaration of His will; just as we also bring forth the hidden thoughts of the heart through mouth and speech. By the eating and drinking, our agreement with His will; for we also, through the sense of taste, satisfy the necessary appetite of nature. By the sense of smell, that power which is indicative of the reception of thought and ^D intention; just as, from what we do through this sense, the reception of fragrance comes about. By the face, the manifestation of Himself through His works, just as the manifestation of ourselves comes about through the face. By the hands, the effective...

^B action by which He accomplishes His works. For we too accomplish all our most useful and excellent works with our hands. By the right hand, His help and aid in favorable circumstances, since we ourselves, in more important matters which require the greatest strength, make use of the right hand. By touch, His most accurate and searching investigation and examination of the most minute and hidden things; for this reason, clearly, that those things which we touch can hide nothing within themselves. By feet and walking, His coming and presence, either to bring aid to those in need, or to punish enemies, or to do some other thing, inasmuch as this is what feet provide for us, that we may arrive at some place. By an oath, the immutability of His counsel: because among us, mutual agreements are confirmed by the interposition of an oath. By anger and fury, His hostile will and hatred toward wickedness. For we too grow angry when we hate things that conflict with our will and purpose. By forgetfulness, sleep, and drowsiness, the delay of punishment upon enemies and the postponement of the customary help to those whom He holds dear and necessary. Finally, to speak in one word, in all these things which are enunciated of God in a bodily manner, there is an abstruse sense, by which, through those things that are appropriate to us, we are taught those things which are above us: unless perhaps something is said concerning the bodily advent of God. For He Himself took on the whole man for the sake of our salvation; that is, an intelligent soul and a body, and the properties of human nature, as well as the natural and blameless passions.

CAP. XII. On the same matters.

Dei nomina ex creatis. ^C Truly, we are taught these things by the sacred oracles, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite says: that God is the cause and origin of all things; the essence of those things that exist; the life of those that live; the reason of those that exist rationally; the intellect of those that exist intellectually; the recall and resurrection of those that fall away from Him; the renewal and transformation of those who corrupt and vitiate what is according to nature; the sacred stability of those who are tossed by certain profane billows; the secure protection for those who stand; the way and guiding hand for those who are rising toward Him, by which they are carried on high. I would add also, Father of those who have been made by Him. For, if we speak properly, God is more truly our Father, having produced us from nothing, than those who have begotten us; ^D as He is the One who has granted both that we exist and that we beget, the shepherd of those who are following and are shepherded by Him, the illumination of those who are enlightened, the perfection of those who are being perfected.

^A It is, moreover, the shepherd of those who follow and are shepherded by Him; the illumination of those who are enlightened; the guide of the initiation for those who are imbued with the sacred mysteries; the dispenser of divinity for those who are made divine; the peace of those who are at variance; the simplicity of those who strive for simplicity; the unity of those who honor unity; the principle of every principle, and higher than every principle; and, in a word, a benign communication of its own hidden nature—that is, of its own knowledge—insofar as it is lawful and possible for each one according to his capacity.

This chapter which immediately follows is an addition, and is not found in the older codices, but rather in a few very recent ones. In the Regius 3109, it is kept after chapter 9 of Book IV, and in another Regius, n. 3451, after chapter 2 of Book II. Lambecius notes that it was appended in the Caesarean codex n. 200 at the end of the *Book of Orthodox Faith*. Yet Joannes Beccus, a former patriarch of Constantinople, and his associates, maintained in a solemn assembly of bishops (the acts of which Georgius Pachymeres reports in his *Andronicus*, Book VII) that it should be attributed to John of Damascus. Indeed, Georgius Scholarius, in both works which he published regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit against the Latins, acknowledges it as the undoubted offspring of our author.

On the divine names, more accurately.

^B The divine essence is in itself unknown to us, and unnameable. For God is incomprehensible, and therefore altogether unnameable. Since, then, we are ignorant of His essence, let us not seek a name for His essence. For names are indicators of things. But God, who is good, brought us out of nothing into being, so that we might be partakers of His goodness, and He endowed us with the faculty of knowledge, even as He did not impart to us His essence, so He did not impart to us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible that a nature should fully know a nature superior to itself. But if the knowledges of existing things are what they are, how shall that which is above essence be known? By His ineffable goodness, therefore, He willed to be named from things familiar to us, so that we might not be entirely destitute of the knowledge of Him, but might have at least a dim notion of Him. Insofar, then, as He transcends all comprehension of the soul, no name can be assigned to Him. Insofar, however, as He is the author of all things and contains in Himself the causes and reasons ^C of all things, He is named from all things, even from things that are opposites—as from light, darkness; from fire, water; so that we may understand that these are not His essence, but rather that He is above essence, and that He cannot even be called by any name, but is named from all effects as the cause of all things.

Of the divine names, some are spoken negatively, declaring that He is above essence; such as unessential, timeless, beginningless, invisible—not that He is inferior to anything, or lacks anything; for all things are His, and from Him, and through Him, and in Him they consist; but because He is above all existing things, He is removed from all. He is nothing among existing things, but is above all things. But the words that are said affirmatively, are predicated as of the cause of all things. ^D Dei nomina negantia, affirmantia. The names that are more fittingly said of God. Evil, nothing; good, existence, and things. Mixed names of God. An affirmation having the force of a pre-eminent negation. Therefore, of the divine names, some are spoken by way of negation, by which it is declared that He surpasses every essence; just as when He is called void of essence, timeless, without beginning, invisible: not because He is in any way...

inferior, or because anything is lacking in Him (for all things are His, and from Him, and through Him, and in Him they consist 19), but because He is in an eminent way superior to all things. For He is not any of the things that exist, but is above all things.

There are, however, other things which are expressed by way of affirmation; these are, naturally, those which are said of Him as the Cause of all things. For just as He is the Author of all things and of every essence, He is called both Being and Essence: and as the Cause of all reason and wisdom, of everything rational and wise, He is called Reason and Rational, Wisdom and Wise. In the same way, He is called Mind and Intelligent, Life and Living, Power and Powerful; and likewise in all other things. Furthermore, He will be more fittingly designated from the more excellent things that approach more closely to Him. For those things that are more excellent, and closer to Him, are those that lack matter compared to those that are material; those that are pure compared to those that are impure; and those that are holy compared to those that are profane; as being things that possess something of Him more abundantly. Thus, He will be called sun and light by a far more familiar reasoning than darkness; and day, than night; life, than death; and likewise fire, spirit, and water, as being life-giving, than earth; and above all these, goodness than malice: which is the same as if I were to say, things rather than nothing at all. For goodness is existence and the cause of existence; but evil is a privation of the good, or of existence. And these are the affirmative and negative terms. From both, moreover, a most agreeable connection is formed, as for example: superessential Essence, superdivine Deity, Principle superior to every principle, and other similar terms. There are also certain things which, although they are said of God in an affirmative manner, yet have the force of an eminent negation. Of this kind is the instance when we call God darkness; not that God is darkness, but that He is not light, but exists as more sublime than every light.

Common Names; Proper to Each Person

God, therefore, is called Mind, and Reason, and Spirit, and Wisdom, and Power, as the Author of these, as devoid of matter, and as the Artificer of all things and omnipotent 20. And these are said both commonly regarding the entire Deity (both those which are expressed through affirmation and those through negation), and individually regarding each person of the holy Trinity, equally, in the same way, and without any defect. For when I consider one of the three persons, I recognize that Person as perfect God and perfect substance. For the Deity is not a certain composite; but in three perfects there is a perfect, indivisible, and incomposite One. When, finally, I turn my mind to the mutual relationship of the persons, I find this to be certain: that the Father is the superessential sun, the fountain of goodness, the abyss of substance, of reason, of wisdom, of power, of light, and of divinity; the generative and productive source of the good hidden within Him. He is indeed Mind, the abyss of reason, the Begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer 35 of the manifestative Spirit; and in order that there may not be many...

causes, but one, and in order that the Word and Spirit may be referred to one cause, he is the sole Fons-Principium of the Godhead. For He is the Father, the sole Begetter, the sole Cause. The Son is the Word, the Sophia, the Power, the Image, the Radiance, the Character of the Father, and from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, not as a Son, but as proceeding from the Father.

CHAPTER XIII

Concerning the place of God, and that the Divine alone is uncircumscribed.

Corporeal place is the limit of that which contains, by which that which is contained is contained; as, for example, the air contains, but the body is contained. Yet not the whole of the contained ^B is contained, nor is the whole of the container...

in what is contained.

Spiritual Place. God is not in a place. God's place is metaphorical.

There is also a spiritual place, where the intellectual and incorporeal nature is understood and exists; where, indeed, it is present and acts, and is not contained corporeally, but spiritually. For it does not have a shape, so as to be contained in a bodily manner. ^A God, therefore, being immaterial and uncircumscribed, is not in a place. For He is His own place, filling all things, and being above all things, and Himself holding all things together. Yet He is also said to be in a place, and a place of God is spoken of, wherever His operation becomes manifest. For He Himself passes through all things without mixture, and imparts to all things His own operation, according to the aptitude and receptive power of each; I mean the natural and voluntary purity. For things are purer than material things, and virtuous ones than those conjoined with malice. Therefore, that is called a place of God which partakes more of His operation and grace. For this reason, heaven is His throne (for there are the angels who do His will, and always praise Him; this, indeed, is His rest), and the earth is the footstool of His feet; ^B for on it He conversed with men through the flesh. Moreover, the holy foot of God is called His flesh. The Church, too, is called a place of God; for we have set it apart as a kind of temple for the singing of His praises, in which we also offer up our prayers ^C to Him. Likewise, the places in which His operation is made manifest to us, whether through the flesh or without a body, are called places of God.

It must be known that the Divine is impartible, being whole and entirely everywhere, and not divided by part in part in a bodily way, but whole in all things, and whole above all.

On the place of an angel and the soul, and on the uncircumscribed.

The angel, ^D although it is not contained in a place in the manner of a body, so as to be shaped by it, yet is said to be in a place because it is present in a spiritual way and acts according to its own nature and power.

On the Orthodox Faith Book I.

and to receive form; yet it is said to be in a place ^A because it is present and acts in a spiritual manner, as is appropriate to its nature; it is not elsewhere, but is circumscribed in an intelligible way there where it also operates. For it cannot operate in different places at the same time. For it is the prerogative of God alone to operate everywhere at the same time. For an angel, because of the swiftness of his nature, and because he crosses over readily and quickly, operates in different places; but God, as One who is everywhere and above all things, acts everywhere at the same moment of time, with one and simple operation in diverse ways.

Moreover, the soul is bound to the body, the whole to the whole, and not part to part; and it is not contained by it, but contains it, even as fire contains iron; and existing within it, it performs its own functions.

That which is circumscribed is that which is defined by place, or time, or comprehension; but that which is uncircumscribed is that which is contained by none of these. The Divine, therefore, is uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and containing all things, and being contained by no comprehension. For it alone is incomprehensible and undefined, known by no one, but only knowing Itself as it is in its contemplative nature. But the angel is also circumscribed by time (for he began to be) and by place (even if, as we said before, in a spiritual manner) and by comprehension. For they also have the nature of others explored in a certain way, and they are completely defined by the Creator. Bodies, finally, are circumscribed by beginning and end, and by bodily place, and by comprehension. ^B

Collectanea regarding God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and regarding the Word and the Spirit.

God, therefore, is completely immutable and unchangeable. For all things, which are not in our own will and power, He predetermined by his foreknowledge, each to be in its own proper and fitting time and place. And according to this: “The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son” (John v, 22). For the Father has judged, and the Son, as God, and the Holy Spirit; but the Son Himself, as man, will descend corporeally and will sit upon the throne of glory (for the descent and the sitting are those of a circumscribed body) and He will judge the whole world in righteousness.

All things are distant from God, not in place, but in nature. In us, prudence, wisdom, and counsel, as habits, approach and depart; not so in God: for in Him nothing happens or ceases to be; since He is devoid of mutation and alteration, and to admit any accident in Him would be impious. For the good, which is concurrent with the substance of God, ...

^A accompanies it. He who always desires God, sees Him; for God is in all things. For all things that exist are dependent upon Him who is; and it is impossible for anything to exist that does not have its being in the One who is. God is indeed intermingled with all things, as the one who maintains their nature; but God the Word, personally united to His own holy flesh, was intermingled with our nature without confusion.

No one sees the Father, save the Son and the Spirit. The Son is the counsel, and wisdom, and power of the Father. For it is not right to speak of a quality in God, lest we declare Him to be composed of substance and quality. The Son is from the Father, and all that He has, He has from Him; wherefore He can do nothing of Himself. For He does not have an operation distinct from the Father. That God, who is by nature invisible, becomes visible through His operations, we know from the structure and governance of the world. The Son is the image ^B of the Father, and the Spirit is the image of the Son, through whom Christ dwelling in man grants to him to be according to the image.

God the Holy Spirit is the medium between the unbegotten and the begotten, and is joined to the Father through the Son. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, Lord Himself, the Spirit of adoption, of truth, of liberty, of wisdom (for He is the producer of all these things); filling all things by His essence, sustaining all things, filling the world in His essence, but uncontainable by the world in His power.

God is an eternal, incommutable substance, the creator of existing things, to be worshipped with a pious mind. God and Father is He who is always unbegotten, as one who is not begotten of anyone, yet has begotten the Son, co-eternal. The Son is also God, who is always with the Father, without time, and eternally, and without flux, and without passion, and indissolubly begotten of Him. God also is the Holy Spirit, ^C a sanctifying power, subsisting in Himself, appearing from the Son—appearing, that is, to men—the One who proceeds.

^A And He is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The Word is that which is substantially and always present with the Father. Again, "word" is the natural movement of the mind, by which it moves, and understands, and reasons; existing as its light and radiance. "Word," moreover, is that which is internal—that which is spoken within the heart. And again, "word" is the messenger of an intelligence, that which is uttered by the mouth. Accordingly, the Word of God is substantial and subsistent; but the other three "words" are faculties of the soul, not considered as having their own subsistence; of these, the first is a natural offspring, always flowing naturally from the mind itself as from a source; the second is called internal; the third, the uttered word.

"Spirit" is understood in many ways. The Holy Spirit is Spirit. But the powers of the Holy Spirit are also called spirits. A spirit also is the good angel, and the demon; the spirit is also the soul. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is called Spirit. And air, too, is spirit; and impure action, and teaching, is spirit; and anger is spirit.

^B Now as to God. Having the Word internal in His own bowels, and having begotten Him with His own wisdom, He brought Him forth; He, having searched out His own internal mind and reason, begotten this Word not as through an instrument, nor as through a non-subsistent knowledge, but as a living energy and a subsistent one. The internal, the uttered… [The text here remains fragmentary, reflecting the transition in the source].

VARIOUS READINGS

NOTES

Spirit, moreover, is the good angel; spirit is the demon; spirit is the soul; and sometimes the mind also is called spirit. Finally, wind and air are termed spirits.

CHAPTER XIV. PROPRIETIES OR ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIVINE NATURE.

The Uncreated, the Unoriginate, the Immortal, and the Infinite; the Eternal; the Immaterial; the Good; the Creative; the Just; the Illuminating; the Immutable; the Impassible; the Uncircumscribed; the Incomprehensible; the Indefinite; the Incorporeal; the Illimitable; the Invisible; the Inconceivable; the Unindigent; the Self-governing and Self-authorized; the All-ruling; the Life-bestowing; the Omnipotent; the Infinite in power; the Sanctifying and Communicative; the containing ^B and holding together of all things, and the Provider for all. All these and such-like properties it possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but itself imparting every good to its own creatures, according to the receptive capacity of each.

The indwelling and inter-subsistence of the Persons in one another (for these cannot be sundered, and they maintain their circuminsession in one another, free from confusion; not that they might be contracted and mixed together, but that they might cling together as one; for the Son is in the Father and the Spirit; and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son; and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, with no coalescing, nor mingling, or confusion occurring). And there is one and the same movement; for there is one impulse and one motion of the three Persons—which is impossible to be seen in created nature.

^C To this is added that the divine illumination and operation—which is one, simple, and indivisible, although for the sake of goodness it becomes varied and universal in the divided subjects, distributing to all the things that constitute and contain their proper nature—nevertheless remains simple, and is so multiplied in divided things that, in the meantime, it gathers and turns those things into which division falls back to its own simplicity. For all things desire it, and exist in it; and it itself grants to all things being, according to the nature of each. This is the being of those things that are, the life of the living, the reason of the rational, the intelligence of the thinking; even while it itself exists above mind, and above reason, and above life, and above essence.

^D The omnipresence of God. Add that He pervades all things without any mixture; while, on the contrary, nothing can penetrate Him: and also that He knows all things by a simple cognition, and, by His divine and all-seeing and immaterial eye, most simply beholds things present, things past, and things future before they come to be; and moreover—

[...not] that he wishes for everything he can do. For he can make it so that no sin falls into it and he can remit sins and bring salvation; and finally, that he can do whatever he wishes: however, he does not wish for everything that he can do. For he can destroy the world, and he does not wish to. ^A

BOOK TWO

Chapter I. De saeculo seu aevo.

He who is before the ages made the ages, of whom the divine David speaks: ^B "From age to age you are" (Ps. LXXXIX, 2). Concerning whom, likewise, the divine Apostle says: "through whom he made the ages" (Hebr. 1, 3). ^C

One ought, therefore, to know that the name of "age" (aion/sæculum) is polysemous; for it signifies many things. For the life of each individual man is called an age. A cycle of a thousand years is also called an age (43). Again, an age is considered as the entire present life; and there is also the age to come, which is the endless life after the resurrection. Age is also called not time, nor any part of time measured by the motion of the sun, that is, consisting of days and nights, but that which is co-extended with things that are eternal, such as a certain temporal motion and interval. ^D For what time is to those things that are under time, this the age is to eternal things.

There are said to be seven ages (44) of this world, from the creation of heaven and earth, until the common consummation of men and...

[index: entries preserved]

^A resurrection. For there is a partial consummation, the death of each; but there is also a common and complete consummation, when the common resurrection of men is to occur. The eighth age is the one to come.

Before the constitution of the world, when not even the sun existed to distinguish day from night, there was no measurable age, but rather something extended alongside eternal things—a kind of temporal motion and interval. And in this respect, there is one age, according to which God is also called eternal, and indeed pre-eternal; for he himself made the age. God alone, lacking a beginning, is the creator of all things—both of the ages and of all beings. By saying "God," I clearly mean the Father, and his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his all-holy Spirit—one God of ours. ^B

Ages of ages are also spoken of, inasmuch as the seven ages of the present world contain many ages—that is, the lives of men. And the one age is inclusive of all the ages, and "age of age" is said of the present one and the one to come. "Eternal life" and "eternal punishment" signify the unending nature of the age to come. For after the resurrection, time will not be reckoned by days and nights. Rather, it will be one day without evening, with the sun of righteousness shining brightly and joyfully upon the righteous, but to the sinners, a deep and unending night. How then shall the Origenist "restoration" period of a thousand years be reckoned? God, therefore, is the sole creator of all the ages, he who also created all things, who exists before the ages.

Chapter II: On the Creation of Things

Since, therefore, the good and supra-good God was not content with the contemplation of himself, but through an excess of goodness was pleased that there should be some things to receive benefits and participate in his goodness, from that which did not exist ^C he brings forth and creates all things, both visible and invisible.

^D [index: entries preserved]

and he creates also the man who is composed of both visible and invisible nature. He creates by thinking, and this thought becomes a work, fulfilled by the Word and perfected by the Spirit. ^A

CHAPTER III [III] Concerning Angels.

The Creator and Maker of the angels is he who is, and who leads them from non-existence into existence; for he created them after his own image, a nature incorporeal, a sort of spirit or immaterial fire, as the divine David says: *Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire* (Ps. CXVII, 20), describing their lightness, their ardor, their fervor, their penetrability, and the sharpness with which they desire God and serve him, pointing out that they are borne toward higher things and are exempt from all material thought. ^B

An angel, therefore, is an intelligent substance, in perpetual motion, possessed of free will, incorporeal, serving God, having received immortality in its nature by the grace of the Creator; the form and definition of this substance, the Creator alone knows.

NOTES

(46) *An angel, therefore*, etc. Others among the ancients, after Josephus the Jew, have thus attributed bodies to the angels, thinking that some of them were turned into demons, because before the flood they had committed impurity with the daughters of men. This error is excellently refuted by Chrysostom and Theodoret in their commentaries on Genesis 6. Joannes Thessalonicensis, in the fifth act of the seventh synod, by the authority of Basil, Athanasius, and Methodius, declared that angels do not consist of bodies, and thus that they cannot be depicted. Where Athanasius thought that the author of those questions sent to Antioch was Basil. But neither does Basil, in the place cited, speak affirmatively, but doubtfully: "Their substance," he says, "is perhaps an airy spirit, or, if not, an immaterial fire." ^C But it may be added that Macarius the Egyptian in his homilies indeed says that an angel, if compared with us, is absolutely incorporeal, but if compared with God, is dense and concrete with matter: but afterwards he teaches that they are pure minds, and in places that are perceived by intellect alone, not circumscribed as bodies are, for they are not circumscribed by the nature of bodies. For it is not natural for them to be capable of any form; therefore they are free from the conditions of bodies. Doubtless Damascenus had learned this from Nazianzen, who did not say that angels are mere minds, but, after he had shown that God also is beyond any class of body, and finding that there was no consistency in what the Peripatetics called the fifth element, he proceeds thus in his argument: "If indeed the substance of God is immaterial, whence did they receive it that angels are bodies, and of what kind are they? They are intelligent spirits, immaterial fire and incorporeal, or closest to it." For souls being immaterial are entirely incomposite; those others are incorporeal. To these I will add the sincere interpreter of my author, Nicephorus of Constantinople, who in his book on the irreproachable faith of Christians against the Iconoclasts, chap. 70, teaches that God ordered that the forms of the Cherubim be fashioned, although they lack all form and appearance. "But the incorporeal Virtues also are most holy, which stand around God, and since they are illuminated by the first splendors from God, they are the ministers of that first splendor: intellectual spirits, and as it were fire consisting of no matter or body. For he says, 'Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fire.' And again: But since they are simple, and have no appearance, they are far immune from form and figure: in as much as they are understood to be immaterial and invisible, they lack dimension, cannot be touched, and have neither quantity, nor mass, nor quality, ^D and for that reason they are exempt from corruption, and of such purity that they do not undergo even the slightest alteration." The same Nicephorus should be read in his disputation against Leo the Armenian.

^C It is said to be incorporeal and immaterial insofar as it is compared to us; for everything, when compared to God, who alone is incomparable, is found to be dense and material; for only the Divine is truly immaterial and incorporeal.

It is, then, a rational nature, endowed with intellect and free will, mutable by choice, or rather, susceptible to change. For everything created is mutable; only that which is uncreated is immutable. And everything rational is endowed with free will. As it is rational and endowed with intellect, therefore, it has free will; as it is created, it is mutable, having the power both to remain in the good and to progress in it, and to lean toward the worse.

Incapable of repentance 47, because it is also incorporeal. For man, by reason of the weakness of his body, was granted repentance.

Immortal, not by nature 48, but by grace. For everything that has had a beginning also has an end by its nature. God alone is always, or rather, even above "always"; for He is not under time, but above time, the Maker of times.

Second spiritual lights, having their illumination from that first and beginningless light; not needing tongue and hearing, but ^D without spoken language.

they communicate their thoughts and counsels one to another. ^A

All the angels were created through the Word and received their perfection by the sanctifying effect of the Holy Spirit, according to the proportion of their rank and order, being participants in illumination and grace.

Angels are circumscribed. For when they are in heaven, they are not on earth; and when they are sent by God to the earth, they do not remain in heaven. They are not held back by walls, doors, barriers, or seals, for they are uncircumscribed. I say "uncircumscribed" because it is not in the place where they essentially are that they appear to those who are worthy—to those to whom God wills that they should appear—but they appear in a transformation, as the observers are able to behold them. For that which is uncircumscribed by nature and in the strict sense is only the Uncreated. For every created thing is limited by God the Creator. ^B

They possess their holiness not from their own nature, but from the Holy Spirit. Through the grace of God they prophesy. They have no need of marriage, since they are immortal.

The place of angels. Since they are minds, they are also in places ^C that are understood by the mind, not being circumscribed in a bodily way (for they are not figured after the manner of bodies, nor are they extended in three dimensions), but rather they are present and operate where they are commanded, and are unable to be and operate here and there at the same time.

Whether they are equal in substance or differ from one another, we do not know. Only God, who created them and knows all things, understands this. But that they differ ^D from one another in illumination and in their standing—whether they hold their standing in relation to their illumination, or...

participate in the standing in relation to their illumination, and illuminate one another—is owing to the excellence of their rank or nature. It is clear, moreover, that those who are superior impart of both illumination and knowledge to those who are lower. ^A

Strong and ready to fulfill the divine will, and appearing immediately anywhere the divine nod may command, they are swift by nature, and they guard the parts of the earth, presiding over nations and places just as they were ordered by the Creator; they manage our affairs and bring us aid. They are altogether over us because of the divine will and command, and they are always existing around God. ^B

They are moved toward evil with difficulty, but they are not strictly immovable; though, in actual fact, they are now immovable, not by nature, but by grace and by their attendance upon the only Good.

Beholding God according to what is possible for them, they have this as their food. ^C

Being superior to us as incorporeal beings, and immune to corporeal passion, they are not, however, without all passion, for only the Divine is impassible.

They are transformed into whatever the Lord God may command, and thus they appear to men and reveal to them divine mysteries.

They dwell in heaven, and they have one task: to praise God and to serve His divine will. ^D As the most holy and most sacred [Dionysius] says,—

Of the orders of angels

As the most holy and most sacred [Dionysius says], they are filled with divine food: in one sense by the primal, life-giving outpouring, and in another by the undiversified and unifying wholeness of the divine feast.

[VARIA LECTIONES: entries preserved]

[NOTE: entries preserved]

^A And the most excellent theologian Dionysius the Areopagite says that all theology, that is, Holy Scripture, has recounted nine celestial substances. This divine master of sacred rites has distinguished them into three triadic arrangements. He says that the first is that which is around God, and is said to be joined to Him closely and without any intermediary: namely, the six-winged Seraphim, the many-eyed Cherubim, and the most holy Thrones; the second is that of the Dominions, Virtues, and Powers; the third, finally, and the last, is that of the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

Some say ^B that they were created before all creation, as the Theologian Gregory says: "He first thinks of the angelic and heavenly powers, and that thought was a work." Others prefer to say that they were created after the first heaven was fashioned. That they were created before the formation of man, all agree. I, however, agree with the opinion of Gregory the Theologian. For it was fitting that an intelligent nature should be created first, then a sensible one, and finally man, consisting of both.

Those who say that the angels are creators of any substance whatever are mouthpieces of the father of lies, the devil. For, being creatures, they are not creators. But the maker, provider, and ^C sustainer of all things is God, who alone is uncreated, who is praised and glorified in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

CHAPTER IV.

On the devil and demons.

having been made for good, and having received in himself no trace of evil from the Creator, not bearing the illumination and the honor which the Creator had bestowed upon him, by his own free will he turned from that which is according to nature to that which is against nature, and lifted himself up ^A against God his Maker, desiring to rise up against Him; and he was the first to depart from good and became evil. For evil is nothing else but the privation of good, just as darkness is the privation of light. For the good is intelligible light, and in the same way evil is intelligible darkness. Having been created light by the Creator, and having become good—for God saw all that He had made, and behold they were very good—by his own free will he became darkness. And there was drawn away with him, and followed him, and fell with him an infinite multitude of the angels who were set under him. Being, therefore, of the same nature as the angels, they became evil, through choice voluntarily turning from good to evil. ^B

NOTES

a. On Ephesians: he agrees: nay, he adds that he, even after his rebellion, might have been similar to the Most High. Isaiah chapter 14 is allegorically interpreted in this sense. Wherefore Cyril of Alexandria says: "He imagined," he says, "that the created thing could ascend to the nature of its Maker." He hoped (as the Theologian says in his poem *On Substance*) for the "regal honors of the great God"; but when he wished to be God, he was entirely turned into darkness, "the darkness of the beginning," the prince of those things that are under heaven, not having fallen from his status. For Paul calls him the "Prince of the power of the air." Thus thinks Theodoret on this passage of the Apostle, and in his *Epitome of Divine Dogmas*; and likewise Scythopolitanus in his chapter *On the Celestial Hierarchy*. Cyril of Jerusalem thinks he was an archangel. Athanasius, in his *Epistle to Serapion*, whom another Cyril followed in his first book of *Glaphyra*, asserts that he fell from the highest rank of the Cherubim, because of the prophecy of Ezekiel, in which, according to the consensus of almost all the Fathers, the fall of the devil is narrated under the name of the king of Tyre. For there he is once and again called the "extended Cherub." To this, Nazianzen seems to have looked in his poems, where he calls him "the first of all, Lucifer, raised on high." Not greatly differing from these is Saint Thomas, where he teaches that he, an apostate from the highest order—that is, of the Seraphim—fell, but dragged many from other orders with him. I omit those ancients who imputed the crime of whoredom to the demons themselves. Irenæus, book IV, chapter 48, says that the devil defected from God from the time he envied the creature of God (Adam, that is), and set out to make him an enemy. This same thing Gregory of Nyssa approves in his *Catechetical Oration*. The author of the *Questions to Antiochus*, quest. 10, puffs away the fiction of those who gossiped that the devil fell from heaven because he refused to adore Adam. He was copying another who was slightly older, who is commonly called Anastasius. Furthermore, in the questions of the Gretser edition, the authors of this fable are said to be Greeks as well as Arabs. Indeed, Mohammed, in Sura 2, writes the same; and Ludovicus Maraccius proves in his annotations to this place in the Alcoran that he received it from the Jews. Our author teaches that the devil rebelled against God, which is to be understood according to the more common opinion of the Fathers, that he wished to be God: but this is not right; for it is a great thing to be God: but it is evil for one who is not God to be ungrateful to the Creator, and to be lifted up beyond the limits of his own nature, and to wish for that which is impossible to be. Moreover, Saint Thomas denies that the devil affected a total likeness of God, which he surely knew could not be attained: therefore, he did not wish to be subjected by obeying the supreme Lord of all things.

What the author adds regarding the nature of demons rightly strikes at the Manichaeans, who assert that the devil is the worst genius of matter, the supreme evil, the cause of all evils, existing and eternal darkness, who of himself sent forth demons as his own virtues, with which to attack God, or the supreme Good. Dionysius the Areopagite excellently refutes these in his chapter *On the Divine Names*, from which I judge Damascene took all these things, in the writings from which you will find more in the *Dialogues against the Manichaeans*.

Of the same nature are the angels. This follows from what has just been said, and is asserted by the more approved teachers of the Church. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and other ancients, in that they were imbued with the dogmas of the Platonic sect, defined demons not only as those angels whom they thought had had intercourse with the daughters of men, but also as the souls of those giants who were procreated from them.

^A Demons, therefore, have no power against anyone unless it is permitted by God in the way of providence, as happened in the case of Job, and as is written in the Gospel concerning the swine. With that permission from God, they have power, and they can shift and transform themselves into whatever shapes they wish by fantasy.

How angels and demons predict the future. Neither the angels of God nor the demons know future events, yet they predict them. The angels do so because God reveals them to them and commands them to announce them; hence, whatever they say comes to pass. Demons also predict, sometimes because they see things happening from afar, and sometimes because they merely guess; hence they often lie, and one should not believe them, even if they frequently speak the truth in the way we have mentioned. Moreover, they know the Scriptures.

All wickedness, therefore, and foul passions were devised by them; and while it is permitted to them to tempt a person, they have no power to force anyone. It lies within us to accept the temptation or not to accept it; hence, for the devil and his demons, and for his followers, the ^B fire is prepared that is not quenched, and the eternal punishment.

One must know that what death is for men, that the fall is for the angels. After the fall, there is no repentance for them, just as there is no repentance for men after death.

[NOTAE] (Certain passages from various fathers are cited regarding the nature of demonic bodies, noting that while some ancient writers, like Tertullian, held that the souls of those who died a cruel death became demons, later Church tradition—specifically Basil the Great in his commentaries on Isaiah—taught that they do not possess bodies in the sense of being fleshy creatures, but are rather said to be incorporeal, though they became attached to the material world after their fall, much as Adam put on coats of skin after his sin. Marcus Ephesius, in an address to the Council, also speaks to the nature of their state as one of being devoid of bodies, yet burdened by the stain of sin and subject to eternal fire. The author notes that the specific mind of Damascene on this nature will be discussed elsewhere and investigated at the final chapter of the book.) ^{C D}

Chapter V. On the visible creature.

^A Our God Himself, who is celebrated as one in three and three in one, made heaven and earth and all that is in them; for He brought all things into being from that which was not. Some things He brought forth out of pre-existing matter, as for instance heaven, earth, air, fire, and water; and others He brought forth from the things created by Him, such as living creatures, plants, and seeds. For these exist out of earth, water, air, and fire by the command of the Creator.

CAP. VI. De cælo.

Heaven is the compass of visible and invisible things. For within its embrace, both the intellectual powers of the angels and all sensible things are enclosed and circumscribed. The divine nature alone is without circumscription; it fills all things, and contains all things, and bounds all things, as it is above all things and has created all things.

Since, therefore, Scripture speaks of "heaven," and "the heaven of heavens," and "the heavens of heavens," and the blessed Paul says he was caught up "to the third heaven," we say that in the creation of the universe we have received the making of the heaven, which the wise men of the world call an unstarred sphere, having appropriated to themselves the dogmas of Moses. Furthermore, God also called the firmament heaven, which He commanded to come into being in the midst of the water, appointing it to divide between the water which is above the firmament and the water which is below the firmament. The nature of this, the divine Basil says, following the divine Scripture, is thin like smoke. Others say it is aqueous, as having been generated in the midst of waters; others say it is fashioned from the four elements; others, a fifth body ^B and something different from the four.

Some have supposed that the whole is encircled by the heaven, and that it is spherical and holds the highest place; but that it is...

^A the center of the space it contains which holds the lowest place. They say that light and airy bodies were assigned the higher order by the Creator, while heavy and downward-tending ones were assigned the lower region, which is the center. Now, fire is the lightest and most upward-tending element, and they say it is placed immediately below the heaven; they call this ether, and below it is the air. They say that the earth and water, as heavier and more downward-tending bodies, hang in the center, so that they are in opposition; the earth is below, and the water is above the earth, yet water is lighter than earth, which is why it is more easily moved than the earth. Thus, just as a garment wrapped about on all sides, the air is around the earth on all sides, and the ether is around the air on all sides, and the heaven is around all things.

They say that the heaven is moved in a circle, and clamps together the things within, and thus remains firm and immovable.

They say there are seven zones of the heaven, one higher than the other. They call it a substance of the utmost subtlety, like smoke, and in each zone there is one of the planets. For they said that there are seven planets: the Sun, the Moon, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Venus, and Saturn. They say that Venus is sometimes called the Morning Star, sometimes the Evening Star. ^B They called these things "planets" because they move in a direction contrary to the heaven. For while the heaven and the rest of the stars move from east to west, these alone have their movement from west to east. We know this from the moon, which moves backward a little each evening.

Those, therefore, who said that the heaven is spherical, say that it stands at an equal distance from the earth, and is removed from it above, from the sides, and from below. From below, I say, as far as regards our observation.

CAPUT VI.

^D concerning the opinion of those who express that the heaven is spherical, alleging that it stands at an equal distance from the earth, from those above, from the oblique sides, and from those below.

NOTES.

Others have affirmed that the heaven is constant, moving in an orbicular motion, and that the earth is located at the absolute lowest part of things, like dregs or sediment. But this contradicts the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. viii, 2, where the heaven is called the tabernacle which the Lord made. "Where are those," says he, "who assert that the heaven is moved? Where are those who pronounce it to be of spherical shape?" But both of these opinions are refuted here. This view Procopius of Gaza defends with the same words in ch. I of Genesis, and imitates Severianus of Gabala, who, in his oration *De opif. mundi*, quotes the words of Isaiah in chapter XL according to the Seventy Interpreters: "He who established the heaven as a vault and stretched it out as a tent." To which he adds the words of Psalm XVIII: "His going forth is from the end of the heaven." Similar to these are the words which Christ speaks in Matthew XXIV: "And he shall gather his elect from the ends of the heavens to the ends of them." Whence he assumes: "But if it is a sphere, it has no ends. For that which is rounded on all sides has no end." Cosmas Indicopleusta seconds these views, whose work was recently published by that man of distinguished erudition, the Reverend Father Bernard de Montfaucon, along with various illustrations by which that ancient system of the universe is represented. This had already been ridiculed by Jerome in chapter XL of Isaiah. Basil also, in *Hom.* V in *Hexaem.*, readily concedes that the earth and heaven are round, and that the heaven is moved by an orbicular motion. Maximus also follows this in his tables; with whom our author is not in disagreement.

^A Since according to the logic of consequence, the heaven occupies the upper place from every side, and the earth the lower. They say that the heaven circles the earth spherically, and carries along with its swiftest motion both the sun and the moon and the stars; and when the sun is above the earth, there is day here, but when it is below the earth, there is night. And when the sun has gone down below the earth, there is night here, but day there. Others have imagined the heaven to be a hemisphere, led to this opinion by the God-inspired David saying, *Who stretches out the heaven like a curtain*, which denotes a tent, and by the blessed Isaiah: *Who set up the heaven like a vault*. And [they say] that when the sun, the moon, and the stars set, they travel around the earth from the ^B west towards the north, and thus arrive again at the east. However, whether it be thus or otherwise, all things have been made and braced by the divine command, and possess the divine will and counsel as an unshakable foundation. For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created. He established them for ever and for the age of an age; He set a decree, and it shall not pass away.

The three heavens.—Thus, the *heaven of heaven* is that first heaven which is above the firmament. Now you have two heavens, for God also called the firmament *heaven*. Then it is familiar to Scripture to call the air also *heaven*, because it is seen above. For it says, *Bless the Lord, all you birds of the heaven*, meaning the air. For the air is the path of the birds, not the heaven. Behold, there are three heavens, ^C which the divine Apostle mentioned. But if you should wish to take the seven zones as seven heavens, it does no harm to the word of truth. It is also customary in the Hebrew language to call heaven in the plural, *heavens*. Desiring, therefore, to say *heaven of heaven*, it said *heavens of heavens*, which signifies the heaven of heaven, that which is above the firmament, and the waters which are above the heavens—or the air and the firmament, or the seven zones of the firmament, or the firmament itself, which by the custom of the Hebrew language is called by the plural name, *heavens*. ^D

The nature of the heavens is corruptible.—Now, indeed, since all things that have come to be by generation are subject to change. For everything that has begun from time, it is of necessity that it should also be finished in time.

^A Since they have come to consist according to the order of nature, they are also subject to corruption, and the heavens themselves, even though they be held together and preserved by the divine gift and grace. God alone is without beginning by nature, and without end; therefore it is said: "They shall perish, but Thou remainest." ^B Yet the heavens shall not be utterly annihilated. For they shall grow old and be folded like a garment and shall be changed, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth.

As to size, the heaven is much greater than the earth. However, one should not investigate the essence of the heaven, for we cannot attain it by knowledge.

Let no one, moreover, imagine that the heavens or the luminaries are animate; for they are without soul and sense. ^C Wherefore, when Scripture says: "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth exult," it invites by these words the angels who are in heaven and the men who are on earth to joy. And Scripture knows how to employ the figure of personification, and to speak of inanimate things as though they were animate; as for instance: "The sea saw and fled; Jordan was turned back." And: "What aileth thee, O sea, that thou fleddest? And thou, O Jordan, that thou wast turned back?" And the mountains and hills are asked the cause of their leaping, just as it is customary for us to say: "The whole city assembled," meaning not the buildings, but the inhabitants of the city. ^D Even so the heavens are said to "declare the glory of God," not as sending forth a voice that is perceived by the ears of the body, but as declaring the power of the Creator through their own magnitude; and, contemplating their beauty, we praise the Creator as an excellent craftsman.

CAP. VII. On light, fire, luminaries, the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Fire is one of the four elements, light and more elevated than the rest, having the power both of burning and of illuminating, created by the Creator on the first day. For the divine Scripture says: "And God said, Let there be light; and there was light."

^A Nor is fire anything else, as some people think, but light. Others, however, say that this elementary fire is above the air, and they call it ether. In the beginning, then—that is, on the first day—God created light, which is the beauty and ornament of all visible creation. For if you were to remove light, all things would lie in darkness, unknown, as they would be unable to make their own beauty visible. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. Furthermore, darkness is not any substance, but an accident; for it is nothing else than the absence of light. Air, indeed, does not have light in its own substance. Therefore, God called this very state—the fact that the air lacks light—darkness. Indeed, the substance of the air itself is not darkness, but the privation of light, which indicates an accident rather than a substance. Nor was night called into being before day, but [day was called into being first]; and consequently day is older, not posterior. Therefore, night follows day; and from the sunrise of one day to the sunrise of the next, one day is joined with the night. For the Scripture says: "And there was evening, and there was morning, one day."

^B The first three days, when the sun did not exist. The function of the moon and stars in the night. — And in these first three days, by the command of God, with the light now diffusing itself and now contracting again, day and night came into being. But on the fourth day God made the greater light, namely the sun, to rule over the day (for by it the day is made; for day is when the sun rests above the earth, and the space of a day is that course which the sun completes above the earth from sunrise to sunset), and likewise the lesser light, that is, the moon, and the stars, that they might rule over the night and bring light to it. Moreover, night is when the sun is below the earth; and the space of night is that course which the sun completes under the earth from sunset to sunrise. The moon, therefore, and the stars were established to illuminate the night; ^C not that they are hidden deep under the earth during the day (for at that time too the stars are in the sky over the earth), but because the sun, by the excessive breadth of its own splendor, covers them and does not allow them to shine forth.

Primigenial light placed in the luminaries. — The supreme Artificer of all things placed the primigenial light into these luminaries, not because He labored under a lack of other light, but so that that light would not remain idle. For a luminary is not the light itself, but a receptacle of light.

^D Seven planets. — Among these luminaries, they count seven planets, which they say are moved with a motion contrary to that of the heavens; on which account they called them planets, or wandering stars. For they say that the heaven is turned from east to west; but the planets [are moved] from west to east.

[and they say] that the heaven, with its more rapid motion, carries them around with it. The names of the seven planets are these: Luna, Mercury, Venus, Sol, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. They maintain, moreover, that in each circle of heaven there is one of the seven planets. In the first, that is, the highest, is Saturn. In the second, Jupiter. In the third, Mars. In the fourth, the Sun. In the fifth, Venus. In the sixth, Mercury. In the seventh, and lowest, the Moon.

They run an unceasing course, which the Creator appointed for them, and just as He founded them, as the divine David says: "The moon and the stars, which thou hast founded." ^B By saying, "thou hast founded," he signified the stability and immutability of the order and arrangement given to them by God. For He appointed them for seasons, and for signs, and for days, and for years. By the sun, the four seasons are constituted: the first, indeed, being spring, for in it God created all things; and this is signified even until now by the blooming of flowers in it, which is also the equinoctial season; for it makes both the day and the night to be of twelve hours. This season arises from the sun's rising in the middle, being temperate, productive of blood, warm, and moist; ^C and by itself it mediates between winter and summer; being warmer and drier than winter, and cooler and moister than summer. And this season extends from March until the twenty-fourth of June.

Then, as the sun's rising ascends to the more northerly parts, the summer solstice succeeds, holding a middle place between spring and autumn; having warmth from spring, and dryness from autumn. For summer is warm and dry, and it causes an increase of yellow bile. And this season has the longest day, of fifteen hours, and the shortest night, ^D lasting for a space of nine hours. And this too extends from the twenty-fourth of June until the twenty-fifth of September.

Then, as the sun again returns to the middle rising, the autumnal season succeeds the summer, having a certain middle state between cold and heat, and dryness and moisture, and mediating between the summer and winter seasons; having dryness from the summer, and cold from the winter. For it is cold and dry, and it is by nature productive of black bile. This again is an equinoctial season, having both the day and the night of twelve hours; and it extends from the twenty-fifth of September until the twenty-fifth of December. When the sun is at...

^A its lower and more depressed—that is, its meridional—rising, the winter solstice and season supervene, which is cold and moist, occupying a middle quality between the autumnal and the vernal; for it possesses the cold of the autumnal and the moisture of the vernal. This season has the shortest day, being of nine hours, and the longest night, being of fifteen hours; and it is productive of phlegm. It extends from the twenty-fifth of December until the twenty-first of March. For the Creator has wisely provided, so that we might not, by passing from extreme cold or heat or moisture or dryness to the extremely opposite quality, fall into grievous diseases—for reason itself knows that sudden changes are dangerous.

^B In this way, then, the sun brings about the solstices, and through them the year, and likewise the days and nights: the days, I say, when it rises and exists above the earth; and the nights, when it goes beneath the earth and sets, and yields to the other luminaries—to the moon, namely, and the stars—that they might shine.

Signs of the zodiac.—They also say that there are twelve signs in heaven made of stars, named after animals, which move in a direction contrary to the sun, the moon, and the other five wandering stars; and the seven planets pass through these signs. The sun, for its part, completes one month in each sign, and traverses the twelve signs in as many months. Moreover, the names of these signs and their months are as follows:

Aries, in the month of March, on the 21st, receives the sun. Taurus, in the month of April, on the 23rd. Gemini, in the month of May, on the 24th. Cancer, in the month of June, on the 24th. Leo, in the month of July, on the 25th. Virgo, in the month of August, on the 25th. Libra, in the month of September, on the 25th. Scorpius, in the month of October, on the 25th. Sagittarius, in the month of November, on the 25th. Capricornus, in the month of December, on the 25th. Aquarius, in the month of January, on the 25th. Pieces, in the month of February, on the 24th.

^{C D} The course of the moon is shorter.—But the moon, as it is in a lower place and traverses the zodiacal circle more quickly, runs through all twelve signs in each month. For just as if you were to make one circle inside another, the inner circle will be found to be smaller; in the same way, when the moon has obtained a lower position, its course is also shorter, and it is necessary that it be completed more quickly.

Whether it is the stars whose signs these are. They do not hinder free will.

of the sun, and of the moon, and of the rising, and of the setting, and of their conjunction, ^A they say that all human affairs are governed. For astrology is concerned with these things. But we maintain that though they become signs of rain and of drought, of cold and of heat, of moisture and of dryness, and of winds and of the like, they are in no way signs of our actions. For since we are made by the Creator with free will, we are masters of our own actions. For if we do everything because of the motion of the stars, we do everything by necessity; and what is done by necessity is neither virtue nor vice. But if we possess neither virtue nor vice, we are worthy of neither praise nor punishment; and God will also be found to be unjust, in giving good things to some, and afflictions to others. ^B Furthermore, God will neither govern nor provide for His own creatures if they are led and carried by necessity; and the faculty of reason will be superfluous in us. For since we are masters of no action, we deliberate in vain; but the faculty of reason has been given to us precisely for the sake of deliberation, whence everything that uses reason is also endowed with the freedom of the will.

We maintain, however, that they are not themselves the causes of any of the things that happen, nor of the generation of things that are generated, nor of the corruption of things that perish, but are rather signs of showers and of the change of the air. Perhaps someone might say that they are also signs of wars, though not causes. And indeed, the quality of the air, being affected in one way or another by the sun, ^C and by the moon, and by the stars, produces different temperaments, habits, and dispositions. But these habits are among the things that are in our power; for they are governed by reason, and are led in a fitting manner.

Comets often arise, being certain signs that portend the death of kings, which are not of the stars which have existed from the beginning, but are formed at the divine command.

For even the star that appeared to the Magi at the time of the Lord's philanthropic and saving birth for our sake according to the flesh was not one of those stars which existed from the beginning; and this is clear from the fact that it would sometimes change its course from the east to the west, and sometimes from the north to the south, and would sometimes be hidden and sometimes appear. For this is not in the order or nature of stars. ^A

It ought to be understood that the moon is illuminated by the sun, not because God was unable to give it its own light, but so that rhythm and order might be established in creation—of one who rules and one who is ruled—and so that we ourselves might learn to commune with one another, to share, and to be subject: first to God, the Creator and Maker and Lord, and then to the rulers appointed by Him; and not to ask why this person rules and I do not, but to accept all things that come about by God's ordering with gratitude and good judgment. ^B

The sun and moon suffer eclipse, reproving the folly of those who worship the creation rather than the Creator, and teaching that they are mutable and subject to change. For everything that is mutable is not God; for according to its own nature, everything mutable is subject to destruction.

An eclipse of the sun occurs when the body of the moon acts as a sort of partition wall, casting a shadow and not allowing the light to be distributed to us. Therefore, to the extent that the body of the moon is found to be obscuring the sun, to that extent the eclipse occurs. Do not be surprised if the body of the moon is of a smaller magnitude; for the sun is indeed said by some to be many times larger than the earth, but by the holy Fathers it is said to be equal to the earth. And yet it happens very often that it is hidden by a small cloud, or a small hill, or a wall. ^C

An eclipse of the moon, however, occurs from the shadow cast by the earth when the moon is fifteen days old and is found to be directly opposite at the center point, the sun being below the earth and the moon above the earth. For the earth makes a shadow, and the solar light cannot reach to illuminate the moon, and from that cause, it is eclipsed. ^D

It must be understood that the moon was created complete by the Creator, that is, fifteen days old; for it was fitting that it should be created perfect. But the sun, as we have said, was created on the fourth day; the moon therefore preceded the sun by eleven days. For from the fourth day to the fifteenth, there are eleven days; and so, according to time

^A in each year, it renders eleven days to the sun; hence, because of this addition of eleven days, in every three years an intercalary month happens for the Hebrews, and that year is found to consist of thirteen months, from the addition of the eleven days.

It is evident that the sun, the moon, and all the stars are composite and subject to change; yet we are entirely ignorant of what their nature is. Some people assert that, being fire devoid of any matter or fuel, they completely cease to exist, and that this is manifest from the fact that, once extinguished, they vanish. Others, however, say that when extinguished, this fire is transmuted into air. ^B

Motion of the Zodiac

Houses of the Planets

Exaltations

Figurations of the Moon

degrees, but is perfectly full when it is removed one hundred and eighty degrees from the sun. We say it occurs twice for this reason, because it happens both as it waxes and as it wanes. Moreover, ^A the moon traverses each sign in two days and a half.

CHAPTER VIII. Of air and winds.

^B Aeris descriptio. — Air is a most subtle element, humid and warm; it is heavier than fire, but lighter than earth and water; it is the cause of respiration and speech; it is colorless—that is, it does not possess color by nature—and it is transparent and pellucid (for it can receive light). It serves our three senses (for by its benefit we see, hear, and smell); it is also capable of heat and cold, dryness and moisture. Its local motions are these: upward, downward, inward, outward, to the right, to the left, and finally, circular motion.

Aer ex se lumen non habet. — It does not have light of itself, but is illuminated by the sun, the moon, the stars, and by fire. And this is what ^C the Scripture said: *And darkness was upon the face of the deep*, 12 wishing to show that the air does not possess light of itself, but that the substance of light is a different thing.

Quid ventus. — But wind is an agitation of the air. Or, wind is a flow of air from the changing of places from which it flows, changing its names accordingly.

Aeris locus, ventorum numerus. — And air also has a place. For the place of each body is that which surrounds it. And what contains and encompasses bodies, if not air? Further, there are many and various regions from whence the air is agitated; from ^D these also the twelve winds (for there are that many in all) derive their names. There are those who contend that air is nothing else but extinguished fire, or the vapor of heated water. Therefore, by its own nature it is warm; but it contracts cold from the vicinity of water and earth, whence it comes to pass that its lower parts are cold, while the upper ones are warm.

Ventorum nomina. — As far as the winds are concerned, from the summer sunrise blows Caecias, which is also called Meses. From the equinoctial sunrise, Subsolanus. From the winter sunrise, Eurus. From the winter sunset, Africus; from the equinoctial sunset, Favonius; from the summer sunset, Corus, which is also called Olympias and Iapyx. Then Auster and Aquilo, which blow with winds opposite to one another. There is also Boreas, placed between Aquilo and Caecias; between Eurus and Auster is Phoenix, which is also called Libonotus; between Auster and Africus is Libonotus, which is also called Leuconotus; finally, between Aquilo and Corus is Thrascias, or Cercius, so named by those who dwell toward this region.

^A [The nations, moreover, which dwell at the ends of the world are these: to the Subsolanus, the Bactrians; to the Eurus, the Indians; to the Phoenician wind, the Red Sea and Ethiopia; to the Libonotus, the Garamantes, who are above the Syrtis; to the Africus, the Ethiopians and the western Moors; to the Favonius, the Pillars of Hercules and the beginnings of Libya and Europe; to the Corus, Iberia, which is today called Spain; to the Thrascias, the Gauls and neighboring nations; to the Aquilo, the Scythians who are above Thrace; to the Boreas, Pontus, Maeotis, and the Sarmatians; to the Caecias, the Caspian Sea and the Sacae.]

CAP. IX. Concerning Waters.

^B The description of waters. The waters above the firmament, and the reason for them. — Water is also one of the four elements, the most beautiful work of God. Water is a fluid and cold element, heavy and tending toward what is below, easily dissolved. Divine Scripture takes note of this when it says: *And darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moved over the waters.* By the deep [abyss], nothing else is meant than a vast quantity of water, the end of which cannot be reached by men. And truly, in the beginnings of the world, water was over the whole surface of the earth. And first, God made the firmament, which might divide the waters that are above the firmament from those that are below the firmament. For in the midst of the abyss of waters, the firmament was established by the command of the Lord. Whence, also, when God said, "Let there be a firmament," it came to pass. But what, then, was the cause why God placed water above the firmament? Clearly, the most intense heat of the sun and the ether. For immediately beneath the firmament, the ether is spread out, ^C and the sun and the moon and the stars are in the firmament; and if water had not been placed above, the firmament would have been set on fire by the heat.

The Sea. — Then God commanded that the waters be gathered into one collection. But in saying "one collection," Scripture does not mean that they flowed together into one and the same place; for it immediately adds, *And the collections of the waters He called seas*; but rather, the narrative shows that the waters were separated from the earth all at the same moment. The waters, therefore, [were gathered] into their collections. ^D [alt-version omitted]

^A And the dry land appeared; from thence are the two ^B seas that encompass Egypt, for she lies in the midst of the two seas. ^C And diverse deeps, mountains, and islands, and headlands, and ports, and different inlets, and shores, and coasts were gathered together. For the shore is called that which is sandy, but the coast is that which is rocky and immediately has depth at the beginning. In like manner also to the east, which is called the Indian [Sea], and to the north, which is called the Caspian; and the marshes also were collected from thence.

Oceanus, therefore, is as it were a river encompassing all the earth, concerning which it seems to me the divine Scripture has spoken, saying: "A river went out of paradise," having fresh and potable water. This [ocean] supplies water to the seas, which, lingering in the seas and remaining motionless, becomes bitter and salt, the sun constantly drawing up its finer parts by means of water-spouts; whence also clouds are formed, and rains occur, through the filtration and sweetening of the water.

This [ocean] is divided into four sources, or rather into four rivers. The name of the one is Phison, that is, the Indian Ganges; and the name of the second is Geon; this is the Nile, which comes down from Ethiopia into Egypt; and the name of the third is Tigris; and the name of the fourth is Euphrates. But there are also very many other, and very great, rivers, some of which empty themselves into the sea, while others are consumed in the earth. Whence it comes to pass that the earth is perforated and honeycombed on all sides, and has, as it were, certain veins through which, receiving the waters from the sea, it sends forth springs. Thus it happens that, according to the quality of the earth, the water of the springs is one [kind] or another. For the seawater is strained and filtered through the earth, and thus it becomes fresh. But if the place from which the spring issues should be bitter or salt, the water will burst forth as such. But it usually happens that water, confined and compressed in certain narrow places, grows warm by bursting forth with force; and hence naturally warm waters emerge. ^D

By the divine command, therefore, the excavations were made in the earth.

^A And thus the waters were gathered into their ^B basins; and from this the mountains were formed. With regard to the water, therefore, God commanded it to bring forth living souls, since it was to be through water and the Holy Spirit, who was borne over the waters at the beginning, that man would be renewed. For this reason the divine Basil brings forward this cause. Accordingly, it brought forth both small and great living creatures; sea monsters and dragons, fish gliding through the waves, and winged birds. For by the birds, the water, the earth, and the air are joined together as if by a certain link. For they are produced from the waters, and they dwell on the earth, and fly in the air. Water is, moreover, an excellent element, useful for many things, and a cleanser of filth, having the power not only to cleanse the body, but also the soul, provided the grace of the Holy Spirit draws near.

On the seas, or bodies of water

^B The Egean Sea is received by the Hellespont, ending at Abydos and Sestus. Then the Propontis, which terminates at Chalcedon and Byzantium; where there are narrow passages or straits, from which the Pontus takes its beginning. Next is the Maeotic Lake. Then again, from the beginning of Europe and Libya, there is the Iberian Sea, running from the Pillars of Hercules to the Pyrenees mountains. After this is the Ligurian Sea, which extends as far as the borders of Etruria. Then the Sardinian, which above Sardinia turns downward toward Libya and Africa. Then the Etruscan, which begins from the extreme borders of Liguria and has its end at Sicily. Afterward the Libycan, then the Cretan, the Sicilian, the Ionian, and the Adriatic, ^C which pours forth from the Sicilian Sea, which they call the Corinthian Gulf, or the Alcyonian Sea. But the sea contained by Sunium and Scylla is called the Saronic. From this is the Myrtoan, and the Icarian, in which also are the Cyclades; then the Carpathian, and the Pamphylian, and the Egyptian. Finally, above the Icarian, the Aegean pours itself forth most closely. Moreover, the voyage along Europe from the mouths of the Tanais River as far as the Pillars of Hercules is 609,709 stades; of Africa, from Tingis as far as the Canopic mouth, 2,752 stades; of Asia, from Canopus as far as the Tanais River along with the gulfs.

4,111 stades. And thus the sea of our inhabited world extends to 1,309,072 stades.

CHAPTER X. On the earth, and things produced from it.

^A The foundation of the earth is unknown. The earth is one of the four elements, dry, cold, heavy, and immovable, brought into existence out of nothing by God on the first day. *In the beginning*, it says, *God created the heaven and the earth*. But on what thing it rests, and upon what foundation it stands, no mortal has been able to say. Some say it is placed upon the waters and made stable, being led by these words of David: *Who firmly established the earth upon the waters*. Others say it is upon the air. Another says: *Who hangs the earth upon nothing*. And again, the God-inspired David, as if from the person of the Creator, says: *I have established its pillars*, designating by the name of pillars the power that holds it together. ^B And the phrase, *He founded it upon the seas*, signifies that the nature of water is poured around the earth on all sides. Whether, therefore, we grant that it is established of itself, or upon air, or upon waters, or upon nothing, we must not depart from pious understanding, but must confess that all things are held together and sustained by the power of the Creator.

In the beginning, then, as divine Scripture says, the earth was covered by waters and was unformed, that is, devoid of ornament. But when God commanded, the reservoirs of the waters were formed, ^C and then the mountains appeared, and by divine command it received its proper adornment, being beautified with grasses of every kind and plants; to which the divine command implanted a power of growth, of sustenance, and of propagation, that is, of generating like from like. And at the Creator’s command, it brought forth also every kind of living creature, reptiles, wild beasts, and cattle. All these were for the timely use of man; but of these, some are for food, such as deer, sheep, gazelles, and the like; others for service, such as camels, oxen, horses, asses, and the like; others for delight, such as monkeys, and among birds, jays, parrots, and the like. ^D Also of plants and herbs, some are fruit-bearing, some are edible, some are sweet-smelling and decorated with flowers, granted to us for the sake of delighting the soul, such as the rose and others like them; and some for the healing of diseases. For there is no animal, nor any plant, in which the Creator has not implanted some power useful for the needs of men. For He, to whom all things are known before their creation, having foreseen that man would depart from the divine command by the decision of his own will and be given over to corruption, therefore created all things—those in the heaven, those on the earth, and those in the waters—for his timely use.

^A For God appointed him lord of all that is in the earth and in the waters. And the snake, too, was familiar to man, rather than to the others that approached him, and he conversed with him through pleasant movements. Thus, through him, the devil, that author of evil, introduced his most pernicious counsel to our first parents. Moreover, the earth produced fruits spontaneously to serve the needs of the animals subject to him; and there was neither rain nor winter on the earth. But after the transgression, when he was compared to the senseless beasts and made like unto them, ^B by having prepared in himself the desire of the irrational over the rational mind, and by becoming disobedient to the Lord’s command, he fell away from the rule appointed for him by the Creator, and the creation that was subject to him; and he was condemned to till the earth, from which he was taken, in the sweat of his brow.

Yet, even now, the use of wild beasts is not useless, and [it serves] for the recognition and invocation of the God who created them. And the thorn, after the transgression, sprang forth from the earth according to the Lord’s decree, with which the rose was joined; and the thorn is used for the gratification, as a reminder of the transgression, because of which it was condemned for us that the earth should bring forth thorns and thistles. ^C That things are to be believed as such is from the fact that, to this day, it is the Lord’s word that causes them to endure, which He said: "Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

Some say the earth is spherical; others, that it is conical. It is certainly much smaller than the heavens, as if suspended like a point in the midst of them. And it itself shall pass away and be changed. Blessed is he who shall possess the land of the meek. For the earth that is to receive the saints is immortal; who, therefore, could worthily admire the infinite and incomprehensible wisdom of the Creator? Or who could render thanks proportionate to the Giver of such great good things? ^D [There are also the known provinces of the earth, or satrapies: of Europe, thirty-four; of the great continent of Asia, forty-eight provinces; twelve canons.]

CHAP. XI. On Paradise.

Since God was about to [create man] from the visible and invisible...

nature, according to his own image and likeness, as it were a king and ruler of the whole earth and of the things that are in it, he ^A first prepared for him a palace, as it were, in which he might pass a life of blessedness and complete felicity. And this is that divine Paradise, planted by the hands of God in Eden, a treasury of all joy and gladness.

NOTE.

The ancients of the Churches—I mean Philo the philosopher and contemporary of the apostles, and Papias the Great, the student of John the Evangelist, the Hierapolite; and Irenaeus of Lyons, and Justin the martyr and philosopher, and Pantaenus the Alexandrian, and Clement the Stromatist, and those around them—theorized about Paradise ^B spiritually, referring them to the Church of Christ. Of whom are also the two most wise Cappadocian Gregorii. All of these, for three reasons, asserted there was also a certain spiritual Paradise. Wherefore, because they understood all things concerning Paradise spiritually for reasons that are incomprehensible, the aforementioned interpreters said that various heresies were born from certain men who heard literally what was said in Genesis about God and Paradise; some dogmatizing that God was corporeal, created according to the material image and likeness of man; ^C others offering great thanks to the serpent, as if through his counsel and the transgression that occurred, the whole human race was generated, who are justly called Ophites. The Manichaeans, both men and women, gather naked in their churches in imitation of Adam and Eve. For see that it is not simply said that this is a paradise by the prophet, but "the paradise of God." But the Mosaic paradise is not called by the name of God, but simply "paradise." Whence also the divine in all things, Ambrose, and Justin ^D the God-inspired martyr, in their commentaries on the Hexaemeron, while going through the accounts concerning Paradise, after having spoken of the sensible trees and waters and the earthly paradise, brought forward in the midst the proposed words of the divine Ezekiel concerning the heavenly paradise, and after having gone through much examination and subtle contemplation on these things, they added, saying that it is most disgraceful and hateful to God to say, or even to conceive at all, that the blessed and adorable divinity of the Word of God should enter with the righteous thief into a transient and material paradise. The more recent of the Fathers—I mean those around the divine Basil, and the river of Christ, John Chrysostom, and Theodore, truly pitiable, [the] Antiochene, and Severus of Gabala, and Eusebius of Emesa, and Epiphanius, thrise-blessed in words and deeds, and Cyril the God-bearer, and Theophilus—all these, rather, expounded their own writings on the six days of creation according to the letter, setting aside allegories and anagogical interpretations. I do not here dispute whether each of those lucubrations of the ancient Fathers, which Anastasius formerly praised, were genuine—to wit, those of Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Pantaenus. For the brevity of the note, which I must heed, does not allow it. Jerome is witness that Irenaeus wrote "On the Eighth"; Eusebius [witnesses that] Clement of Alexandria...

^A *Edem* is translated as "pleasure." It was planted by the hands of God in Eden, a wellspring of delight and joy (for *Eden*, if you translate it, means "delights"). Situated in the East, higher than all the earth, it was perfectly temperate and illuminated on all sides by the thinnest and purest air, blooming with plants that were always in flower, full of sweet fragrance, and overflowing with light. It surpassed all imaginable beauty and every sensory charm; it was truly a divine region, a dwelling place worthy of him who had been created in the image of God. In it, no creature devoid of reason moved, but only man, the work of the hands of God.

^B Why the tree of knowledge was planted. In the middle of it, God had planted the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. The tree of knowledge [was planted] to be a trial, a test, and an exercise for man’s obedience and disobedience. Therefore, it is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because it gave the power of discernment to those who partook of it according to their own nature—something that was good for those who were perfect, but for those who were more immature and had a desire for it, it yielded a grave disadvantage, just like solid food for those who are still at a tender age and have need of milk. For the Creator did not wish that we, the creatures of our own life, should be anxious and troubled about many things, which is what eventually happened to Adam. For once he had tasted the fruit of the tree, he realized that he was naked and, for that reason, he fashioned himself a loincloth; for having taken fig leaves, he girded himself. Before the tasting, both were naked, both Adam and Eve, and they were not ashamed. God willed that we be such—that is the very state of apathy—and furthermore free from care.

so that we should be occupied with no other work than that which belongs to the angels: namely, to praise the Creator without ceasing, to delight in the contemplation of Him, and to cast all our care upon Him—just as He declared through the prophet David with the words: ^A *Cast thy care upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee.* Moreover, in the Gospels, teaching His own disciples, He says: *Be not anxious for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on.* And again: *Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.* And speaking to Martha: *Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: but one thing is necessary. For Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her*; that is, to sit at the Lord’s feet and listen to His words.

The Tree of Life, whence it is so named. The sensible and spiritual Paradise. The Tree of Life and "every tree."

But certainly, the tree of life was of such a nature that it either conferred life, or could be eaten by those who were worthy of life and not subject to death. ^B Now some have imagined the paradise to be sensible, others, spiritual. However, it seems to me that just as man was created consisting of both a sensible and a spiritual nature, so also his most sacred temple was both sensible and spiritual, and it exhibited a twofold character. For in body, as we have related, he dwelt in that most divine and beautiful region; but in soul, he abode in a place higher and, by any comparison, more excellent and beautiful, having as his house his guest, God, and indeed having Him as an illustrious garment, by whose grace he was clothed, and in whose contemplation—which alone is the sweetest of fruits—he might rejoice with great pleasure, ^C like some other angel, and be fed by it; this is what has rightfully been called the tree of life. For the sweetness of divine participation imparts to those who perceive it a life interrupted by no death. And that is what God called "every tree," saying: *Of every tree that is in the paradise ye shall eat.* For He Himself is the All, in whom and through whom all things consist.

The Tree of Knowledge.

But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ^D is the discernment of manifold speculation, that is, the recognition of one's own nature; which, insofar as it proclaims the magnificence of the Artificer within itself, is indeed good for the mature and those who have progressed in divine contemplation, because they have nothing to fear that they might slip into worse.

^A For it is not good for those who are still young and have an appetite more ravenous than is fitting—who, because they are not yet firmly rooted in what is best, nor constantly fixed in the contemplation of the only Good—naturally turn toward the care of their own body, and are distracted by it.

^B Omne lignum, God’s knowledge through created things. In this way, I think that the paradise was twofold, and the God-bearing Fathers have truly handed this down, both those who taught in this manner and those who taught in that. Yet, it is also possible to understand "every tree" as that knowledge of divine power which is acquired from created things, as the divine Apostle says: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1, 20). But of all these thoughts and contemplations, that one is the more excellent which consists in the consideration of ourselves, or of our own composition, as the divine David says: "Your knowledge is too wonderful for me" (Ps. CXXXVIII, 6), that is, from my own structure. Moreover, such knowledge for Adam, being newly created and tender, was not without danger for the reasons we have mentioned.

Lignum vitae again, and of the knowledge of good and evil. Sensible food is akin to death. By the "tree of life," it is permissible to understand that more divine speculation which is born from sensible things, and that ascent by which, through them, we rise up to the parent, creator, and author of all; this is what the Scripture calls "every tree," that is, full and undivided, bearing only the participation of Good. But by the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," it means the sensible and delightful food which, although it presents the appearance of sweetness, in truth brings the one who partakes of it into the possession of evils. For God says: "You may eat of every tree in the garden" (Gen. II, 16), as if He were saying, if I am not mistaken: "Cause that through all creatures you may rise up to me, the Creator, and pluck one fruit from all of them—namely, Me, who am the true Life. Take pains that all things may bring you the fruit of life; and act so that you may consist in the nature of things through participation in Me. For in this way you shall be immortal. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die" (Gen. II, 17). For the nature of sensible food is such that it replenishes that which has ebbed away, and departs into the privy and corruption. Nor is it possible that he who feeds on sensible food should remain incorruptible. ^D

Chapter XII.

Thus, therefore, God created the intelligent substance, I mean the angels and all the heavenly orders.

which are ^A clearly of an incorporeal nature; incorporeal, I say, if they are compared with the grossness of matter. For otherwise, God alone is truly devoid of matter and body. In this same way He also created the sensible nature, namely, heaven and earth and what lies between them; the former He made familiar to Himself (for the rational and intellectual nature is familiar and akin to God, and apprehended by the mind alone), but the latter, entirely set apart ^B at an immense distance, as falling under the senses. But it was necessary, as the interpreter of divine things, Gregory, says, that a specimen of the greater wisdom and munificence concerning the natures of things should be given, so that a certain composite being, as it were, should be fashioned out of both—which would be, as it were, a bond between the visible and invisible nature. And by this word *should be fashioned*, nothing else is indicated but the will of the Creator. For this law and sanction is most becoming, nor will anyone say to the Maker: Why did You make me thus? For the potter has the right over His own clay ^C to fashion vessels of different kinds, by which He might provide an argument for His own skill.

Since these things were thus, God creates man from a visible and invisible nature with His own hands to His own image and likeness: and so, indeed, that having fashioned the body from the earth, He bestowed upon him by His own inbreathing a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, which we call the divine image. For what is said, *to the image*, signifies the power of understanding and liberty of will: but what is said, *to the likeness*, denotes an express similarity ^D of virtue, as far as is possible.

NOTE.

76) *To the image*. Chrysostom, in order to repel the ravings of the Anthropomorphites further, said that it did not even pertain to the substance of man to be the image of God, but that he obtained this because he was set over all living creatures: he says this in his homily on Genesis and elsewhere. But Basil had taught that man exercises authority because of the reason with which he is endowed. For he interprets the voice of God thus: *Let us give him the prerogative of reason, and thus let them preside.* Damascenus, lib. *De duabus voluntatibus*, writes that it is fitting for the angel just as for man to be the image of God, on account of reason, intelligence, and free will; and also because both beget and emit the Word; finally, because they are also set over created things. He says, however, that man was made in a singular way to the image of God, because from Adam, who was created, Abel was born, and Eve was produced; and because his soul rules over the body, as God rules over the world, by which it comes about that man collects within himself things most diverse, namely, the spiritual and sensible nature. This he seems to have taken from Anastasius the Antiochene, who in another chapter says that by the word "image" is meant the Word, who is the image of the Father, made man. He hands this down in his homily on the *Hexameron* and in two other small works which he published on this subject, which are found after the *Philocalia* of Origen. The former is found among the works of Gregory of Nyssa, though it is truly written by Anastasius the Antiochene.

The Greek Fathers also, taught by the philosophy of Plato, commonly say that man is the image of God, firstly because he is rational; but that the likeness is that which, through divine help, and his own labor, he is adorned with virtues; so that, through sin, although the image remains, the likeness vanishes. Thus Clement of Alexandria, lib. II *Strom.*; Basil, hom. *De hominis structura*; Nyssa, *De opificio hominis* cap. 16; Isidore of Pelusium, and others, who do not deny that those voices are synonymous. But Cyril of Alexandria in the fragment found in the *Catenae* does not prove this distinction.

Error of Origen drawn from the Timaeus.

The endowments of the newly created man.

[NOTÆ] It is not safe for one who has been formed of clay to take pleasure in such games. Origen had truly intended this for himself, to discuss the mysteries of the faith in his *Books on First Principles* as if in sport, as he himself testifies in the preface. Gregory of Nyssa points to Origen more clearly in his chapter *On the Making of Man*, where he says: "None of those who came before us, in the commentaries they published *On First Principles*, declared that the souls of men existed separately before their bodies as a kind of people using their own laws, such that if they were to apply themselves to virtue and honesty, they would clearly not be joined to bodies; but if they should fall away from the conjunction with the good, they would slip down into this life, and thus be involved in bodies." ^C Shortly after, he subjoins the opinion of others who concluded from the history of Adam's creation that the soul was subsequent to the body. He deems both opinions worthy of censure. The first, however, is concocted from Pythagorean fables: why even from those of the Gnostics and especially the Basilidians? Jerome, *Epistle* 82, marks with folly the persuasion of certain ecclesiastics who believed that souls were created long ago in the treasury of God. He says that it must then be investigated whether they are made daily by God and sent into bodies according to that [verse] of the Gospel: "My Father works even until now," etc. Or whether it is certainly by traduction, as Tertullian, Apollinarius, and the greater part of the Westerners suppose, so that just as body is born from body, ^D so soul might be born from soul, and subsist in a similar condition to that of the brutes. Tertullian indeed held this view; but Apollinarius, since he separated the mind from the soul—the sentient one, that is—it should not seem surprising to anyone that he argued in the same way about the origin of the human soul as he did about that of the brute. The entire Eastern Church ever after abhorred this error, from which the Western Church did not dissent, although Augustine, *De Genesi ad litteram*, lib. X, c. 28, wrote that the opinion of those who think souls are created from parents carries more weight regarding the baptism of infants, indeed on account of the propagation of original sin, which he had asserted against the Pelagians: as if this could not happen unless the soul were generated by traduction. Regarding which matter there exists in the codex an elegant oration of Georgius Scholarius, or Gennadius of Constantinople, to Theophanes, the prelate of Media.

^A so that it might remain; and that it might praise Him by whose benefits it has been adorned; this, that it might suffer, and by suffering be admonished, and, because of the greatness of the cause, be exalted and amended: an animal here, in the present life, governed by a certain plan; and elsewhere, that is, migrating to the future age; and the end of which mystery is that it be endowed with divinity through the conversion of the mind toward God; not that it migrates into the divine substance, but that it participates in the divine illumination.

^A That man was created sinless, and endowed with free will. I say sinless, not as one not admitting of sin—for only the Divine is incapable of sin—but as not having sin in his nature, but rather in his choice; that is, as having the power to remain and progress in the good, while being assisted by divine grace, and likewise to turn from the good and become fixed in evil, God permitting this because of the free will. For that which is done by force is not virtue.

^B Regarding the soul. — Now the soul is a living, simple, and incorporeal substance, escaping by its own nature the perception of bodily eyes, immortal, a participant in reason and intelligence, using an organic body and contributing to it life, growth, and sense, and the faculty of generation, not having a mind separate from itself (for the mind is nothing other than its most subtle part: for what the eye is in the body, that the mind is in the soul), endowed with free will, the power of volition and action, mutable, that is, easily turned by will, because it is also created. All these things it has received by nature from the grace of Him who created it, from whom it has also received its being and its being such by nature.

^B Now, I say he was created by nature sinless, and with a free will. I say sinless, not as though he were not capable of admitting sin—for only the Divine is incapable of sin—but as not having the sinning in his nature, but rather in his volition; that is, as one having power to remain and progress in the good, being aided by divine grace, and likewise to turn from the good and to exist in evil, God allowing this on account of the free will. For that which is done by force is not virtue. ^C The soul, therefore, is a living substance, simple and incorporeal, invisible to bodily eyes by its own nature, immortal, endowed with reason and intellect, without form, using an organic body, and providing to it life, growth, and sensation, and the power of generation, not having a mind separate from itself, but [having it as] its most pure part—for just as the eye is in the body, so is the mind in the soul—endowed with free will, capable of volition and action, mutable, that is, easily turned by will, because it is also created.

according to nature ^A received from the grace of the Creator, from whom it has received both its being and its having become such by nature.

On the various senses of "incorporeal."

On the body.

We must know that there are four elements: earth, which is dry and cold; water, which is cold and moist; air, which is moist and hot; and fire, which is hot and dry. In the same way, there are four humors ^B corresponding to the four elements: black bile, corresponding to earth, for it is dry and cold; phlegm, corresponding to water, for it is cold and moist; blood, corresponding to air, for it is moist and hot; and yellow bile, corresponding to fire, for it is hot and dry. The fruits are composed of the elements, the humors are composed of the fruits, and the bodies of living beings are composed of the humors, and into these they are resolved. For everything composed of certain things is resolved back into them.

That man shares in common with inanimate, irrational, and rational things.

The senses are five: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Concerning motion triggered by impulse, ^D

^A that is, the shift from place to place, and the motion of the whole body, and the vocal and respiratory functions—for these things are within our power to do or not to do. Through the rational faculty, man is joined to the incorporeal and intelligent natures, by reasoning, and by understanding, and by judging each thing, and by pursuing the virtues, and by embracing piety, which is the summit of all virtues; for this reason, man is called a microcosm.

The properties of body and soul.

Piety and contemplation, however, belong properly to the soul. Virtues are common to both soul and body, though they are referred back to the soul, inasmuch as the soul employs the body as an instrument.

The rational faculty is by nature the master of the irrational part.

But the nutrid faculty, the generative, and the arterial pulsatory belong to that part which rejects the rule of reason. The vegetative faculty is that by which we grow and generate; the vital, finally, is that by which the arteries are moved.

Furthermore, the nutrid faculty has fourfold powers, namely: the attractive, by which food is drawn in; the retentive, by which it is retained and not allowed to be immediately excreted; the alterative, by which it alters the food ^D into humors.

^A the excretory, by which the residue is separated and cast out through the bowels.

We must know that of the faculties in a living creature, some are psychic, some vegetative, and some vital. Psychic faculties are those that depend on choice, that is to say, movement by impulse and sensation. Movement by impulse includes change of place, the movement of the whole body, the production of voice, and respiration; for it is in our power to do these things or not to do them. Vegetative and vital faculties, however, are those that do not depend on choice. The vegetative faculties are the nutritive, the augmentative, and the seminal; the vital is the pulsitic. These operate whether we wish it or not, and perform their function.

We must know ^B that of things, some are good and some are bad. A good thing expected creates desire; present, it yields pleasure. Likewise, a bad thing expected brings fear; present, it brings sorrow. We must know that when we say "good" here, we mean either that which is truly good or that which seems to be good; and the same is to be understood of evil.

Chapter XIII. Concerning pleasures

Of pleasures, some are ^C of the soul and some are of the body. Those of the soul are all those which the soul enjoys by itself, such as those felt in learning and contemplation. Those of the body are those in which both soul and body participate, and for this reason they are called bodily; such as those usually derived from food, sexual union, and the like. One could find no pleasure that belongs to the body alone.

Again, of pleasures, some are true and some are false; and ^D those of the mind alone are based on knowledge and contemplation, while those involving the body are based on sensation. And of the pleasures involving the body, some are natural and at the same time necessary, without which it is impossible to live, such as food, the replenishment of deficiency, and necessary clothing; while others are natural,

those that are obtained from necessary clothing. Other things, likewise, are natural, but not necessary, such as the natural and legitimate use of venery. For although venereal pleasures concern the conservation of the entire species, they are not, however, of such a nature that, if they are removed, life cannot be led in virginity. Others, finally, are neither necessary nor natural, such as drunkenness, the petulance of lust, or the excessive gorging of food. For these kinds of pleasures neither conduce to the conservation of our life, nor to the propagation of the species; indeed, they are harmful. Wherefore, he who professes a way of life acceptable to God ought to pursue only those things which are at once necessary and natural; but those which are natural, yet not necessary, he should hold in a secondary place, and not apply them except at a suitable time, place, and measure. The remaining ones, finally, must be utterly rejected. ^B What pleasures ought to be considered honest. Honest pleasures further are to be considered entirely those which are neither joined with sorrow, nor afford cause for repentance, nor give rise to any other inconvenience, nor exceed measure, nor, finally, greatly distract us from serious business, or enslave us.

CHAPTER XIV. On Sadness.

Tristitiæ quatuor species. Tristitiæ quatuor species: mæror, molestia, invidentia, misericordia. Mæror est tristitia vocem adimens: molestia, tristitia premens: invidentia, tristitia ob alterius bona: misericordia denique, tristitia ob res aliorum adversas.

CHAPTER XV. On Fear.

^C Timoris genera. Sed et metus sex sunt genera: segnities, pudor, verecundia, stupor, terror, angor. Segnities est metus impendentis actionis. Pudor, metus ex vituperationis exspectatione: optimusque est hic affectus. Verecundia, metus ob admissum turpe facinus: at ne hic quidem affectus extra spem salutis est. Stupor, metus ex immani aliqua re animo objecta. Terror, metus ex insuetæ rei specie contractus. Angor denique, metus ne vota nostra infeliciter cedant. Tunc enim angore afficimur, cum metuimus ne quod aggressi sumus, bene non succedat.

CAP. XVI. De Ira.

^D Ira est sanguinis qui cordi affusus est, ebullitio, ex exhalatione, seu fuligine bilis proveniens: unde et Græce appellatur, et χόλος. Est etiam interdum ira, ulciscendi libido. Nam cum...

^A ab aliquo lædimur, aut lædi nos existimamus, ira commovemur: ac tunc mixtus fit hic affectus ex cupiditate et ira.

Tres iræ species.— Tres porro iræ sunt species: Excandescentia, quæ et χολή, et χόλος dicitur; μῆνις, item, et κότος. Nam cum ira exoritur, moverique incipit, χολὴ nuncupatur. μῆνις autem est bilis diuturnior, sive acceptæ injuriæ memoria. Unde etiam hoc nomen nacta est ἀπὸ τοῦ μένειν, id est quod maneat et memoriæ tradatur. Κότος denique est ira ulciscendi occasionem captans, unde et nomen traxit ἀπὸ τοῦ κεῖσθαι, id est, eo quod anima reposita sit.

Ira, rationis satelles, vindex concupiscentiæ.— Est porro ira rationis satelles, vindex cupiditatis. Nam cum rei alicujus desiderio tenemur, atque ab aliquo cohibemur, tunc quasi injuria accepta, adversus illum excandescimus; ratione videlicet eam rem iracundia dignam judicante, in illis utique qui ordinem suum tuentur, ut naturæ ratio postulat. ^B

CHAPTER XVII

On the imaginative faculty.

Quid sit imaginatio.— Vis imaginandi, irrationabilis animæ partis facultas est, per sensuum organa operans; quæ et sensus dicitur. Φανταστὸν autem, et sensibile illud appellatur, quod sub vim illam et sensum cadit, v. gr. visus ipsa vis est cernendi; visibile, quod visui subjicitur; puta, lapis, aut aliquid hujusmodi. Φαντασία（*phantasia*）de σι est affectio irrationabilis animæ ex aliqua re, quæ in imaginandi vim cadat, exorta. Φάντασμα δέ, phantasma denique, seu visum, est affectio inanis in parte animæ irrationabili, quam nulla res, quæ imaginationi subjiciatur, efficiat. Sedes porro virtutis imaginandi est anterior cerebri ventriculus. ^C

CHAPTER XVIII

De sensu.

Sensus est ea animæ vis, quæ res materiales percipit, seu dijudicat. Αἰσθητήρια δὲ, sensoría autem, organa sunt, sive membra quorum beneficio et opera sentimus. Αἰσθητὰ δὲ, sensibilia vero, ea quæ sub sensum cadunt. Αἰσθητικὸν δὲ, sentiendi capax, denique, animal est sensu præditum. Sensus autem quinque sunt, totidemque sensuum organa.

Primus sensus est visus. ^D Sensoría ejus, seu organa sentiendi, nervi sunt e cerebro derivati, et oculi. Ac visus quidem primarié colorem percipit, et una cum colore corpus coloratum dignoscit, ipsiusque magnitudinem, figuram, locum in quo

^A its movement, and its shape, and the space between, and the number, and motion, and rest; whether it is rough or smooth, level or uneven, sharp or blunt; and finally, its structure and consistency, whether it is aqueous, or earthly, that is, moist or dry.

Only man and the ape do not move their ears. ^B The second sense is hearing, which is perceptive of voices and sounds. This sense distinguishes their acuteness and gravity, their smoothness and their roughness, and their volume. Its organs are the soft nerves led from the brain, and the structure of the ears. Furthermore, of all animals, only man and the ape do not move their ears.

The third sense is smell, which occurs as the nostrils carry vapors to the brain, and it terminates at the extremities of the anterior ventricles of the brain. The sense of smell perceives and senses odors. Now, the most general distinction of odors is that we understand some to be sweet, others foul, and others neither sweet nor foul. A sweet odor comes about when the humors that are within the bodies have been properly cooked. But if they have been cooked only moderately, their state will also be intermediate. But if there is less than moderate cooking, or no cooking at all, a foul odor is exhaled. ^C

The fourth sense is taste, by which flavors are perceived or sensed. Its organs are the tongue, especially its extremity or tip, and the palate (which some Greeks call a "calyx" or cup), in which those nerves are stretched out that are carried down from the brain and report to that part of the soul which holds the primacy, what has been perceived and what sense has been active. The qualities of flavors, which are called tastable, are these: sweetness, acrimony, acidity, acerbitas, astringency, bitterness, saltiness, richness, viscosity. These qualities are distinguished by taste. But water, as far as these qualities are concerned, is devoid of all flavor: for it has no quality. Now, astringency is nothing else but a certain more intense and redundant bitterness.

The fifth sense is touch, which is also common to all animals. ^D It exists, however, through the operation of the nerves distributed from the brain into the whole body. From this it happens that the whole body, and likewise the other organs of perception, possess the sense of touch. Furthermore, subject to touch are the hot and the cold, the soft and the hard, the tenacious, the rigid, the heavy and the light. For these are known by touch alone. Common to both touch and sight are the rough and the smooth; the dry and the moist; the thick and the thin, the upward and the downward; also place and magnitude (if indeed it be so great that it is subject to perception), and the dry and the rigid.

that is to say, ^A porous, and round, provided it be small, and other such shapes. Likewise, it also perceives a body that is approaching, along with memory and thought; and likewise a number up to two or three, and these small, and easily comprehended. Sight perceives these things more than touch does.

One must know that the Creator fashioned each of the other sense organs as double, so that if one happens to be injured, the other may fulfill the need. For He created two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and two tongues; but in some animals these are divided, as in snakes, while in others they are joined, as in man. But He diffused touch throughout the whole body, except for the bones, the nerves, the nails, the horns, the hair, the joints, and other such things.

One must know that sight sees in a straight line; but smell and hearing do not perceive objects of sense in a straight line only, but from every direction. However, touch and taste do not know things in a straight line, nor from every direction, but only when they approach their own proper sensible objects.

Chapter XIX.

Concerning the cognitive faculty.

Chapter XX.

Concerning the memorial faculty.

learning or through the natural notion of the intelligent mind. For this does not come from sensation: indeed, sensible things are kept in memory by themselves, ^A but with regard to intelligible things, if we have learned something about them, we remember it; but we have no memory of their substance.

How recalling (reminiscence) comes to be. — A person is said to truly "recall" when he recovers the memory that was obscured by forgetfulness. For forgetfulness is the loss of memory. Therefore, the imagination transmits the materials perceived by the senses to the faculty of thought or reason (the force of both terms is the same)—and that faculty, having received and weighed them, transmits them to the memory. The organ and seat of memory is the posterior ventricle of the brain, which they also call the cerebellum, and the animal spirit which is enclosed within it.

CHAPTER XXI. Concerning the internal and the uttered word (logos).

^B Reason and speech, or the internal word of the mind and the word of the mouth. — Again, the rational part of the soul is divided into the internal word and the uttered word. The internal word is a movement of the soul taking place in the faculty of reasoning without any vocalization, whence we often traverse an entire speech within ourselves while remaining silent, and we converse in our dreams. On account of this, we are primarily called rational. For those who are born deaf, or who have lost the use of their voice due to some disease or injury, are nonetheless rational. ^C But the uttered word manifests its power in the voice and in modes of speech; that is, the word which is brought forth by the aid of the tongue and mouth. Hence it is called "uttered," and it is the messenger of the mind's thought. By this word, moreover, we are called "speaking beings"—that is, endowed with the faculty of speech.

CHAPTER XXII. Concerning passion and activity.

"Passion" is an equivocal term. — The term "passion" has multiple meanings. For the passion of the body is spoken of, such as diseases and wounds; and again, the passion of the soul, such as desire and anger. ^D In a common and general sense, however, passion is an affection of an animal, which is followed by pleasure or pain. For pain follows passion, yet passion itself is not pain. For insensible things suffer but do not feel pain. Therefore, not the passion itself, but the sense of the passion, is pain. Furthermore, that which strikes the sense must be noteworthy—that is, significant.

What soul-passion is. — For the definition of passions is as follows: Passion is a sensible movement of the appetitive faculty arising from the imagination of some good or evil. And in another way, passion is...

an irrational movement of the soul due to the opinion of something good or evil. Now, the opinion of what is good moves desire; the opinion of what is evil moves anger. But in a general and common sense, passion is thus defined: Passion is a movement from one thing into another. ^A Action, however, is an efficacious movement. That which moves from itself is called efficacious. Thus, for example, anger is an action of the irascible part, but it is a passion of both parts of the soul, and indeed of the whole body, when it is violently drawn by anger towards actions. For then the movement happens from one thing into another, which is called passion.

And in another way, an action is called a passion. For action is a movement in accordance with nature, while passion is a movement contrary to nature. Therefore, according to this reasoning, an action obtains the name of passion when it is stirred by a movement repugnant to nature, whether one is moved by oneself or by a movement impressed by another. Thus, the movement of the heart, by which the arteries are pulsed, since it is natural, is also an action; but that which arises from palpitations, because it exceeds the measure and is not in accordance with nature, is certainly a passion, not an action. ^B

Nor are all movements that are excited in the passible part of the soul called passions; rather, only those that are more vehement and proceed as far as sense perception. For light movements, which are not perceived by the senses, are not yet passions; for a passion must have a significant magnitude. Hence, it is added to the definition of passion that it is a *sensible* movement, because small movements, escaping the senses, do not constitute a passion.

^C

CHAPTER XXI: The faculties of the soul, both cognitive and vital.

It must be known that our soul has two kinds of faculties: the cognitive and the vital. The cognitive faculties are the intellect, the thought, the opinion, the imagination, and the sense. The vital — that is, the appetitive — are the will and the faculty of choice. But so that what is said may be clearer, let us examine these things in detail; and first, let us speak of those that are cognitive.

As for imagination and sense, enough has already been said in what precedes. Through the sense, therefore, a movement is formed in the soul, which is called imagination. From imagination arises opinion. Then the thought (dianoia), examining the opinion to see whether it is true or false, judges the truth ^D; whence it is also called *dianoia* (thought), from *dianoiein* (to think through) and *diakrinein* (to discern). Therefore, what has been examined and defined as true is called the intellect (nous).

Otherwise: It must be known that the first of the...

^A If the intellect’s agitation is simple, it is called thought (noesis). But if it is fixed upon something, it is called an *ennoia* (concept or mental notion), which, remaining and impressing the soul toward that which is thought, is termed *enthymesis* (reflection). If the *enthymesis* stays in the same place and examines and inquires into the soul’s relation to what is being thought, it is termed *phronesis* (prudence). And *phronesis*, when it has pondered, produces *dialogismos* (reasoning), which is called internal speech; the definers say this is the fullest movement of the mind within the faculty of reason, generated without any emission of voice, from which they say external speech proceeds, which is spoken by the tongue. Having thus spoken of the cognitive faculties, let us speak ^B of the vital, or appetitive, faculties.

One must know that a power of appetite for what is according to nature, and that which preserves those things essential to nature, is implanted in the soul; this is called will (*thelesis*). For it desires substance, being, to live, and to be moved according to mind and sense, longing for its own natural and complete existence. Therefore, they define this natural will as follows: Will is a rational and vital appetite, depending solely on things that are natural. Hence *thelesis*, truly, is nothing other than the natural, vital, and rational appetite itself for all those things of which nature is constituted; and it is a simple faculty. For the appetite of irrational creatures, since it is not rational, is not called *thelesis*.

^C But *boulēsis* (volition) is a certain natural will, that is, a natural and rational appetite for some thing. For there is implanted in the human soul a power of desiring according to reason; when, therefore, this appetite is naturally moved toward some thing, it is called *boulēsis*; for *boulēsis* is an appetite and a desire for some thing.

*Boulēsis* is said to be both of those things which are in our power and of those which are not in our power; that is, of things which can happen and of things which cannot. For we often wish to attain, or to be temperate, or to sleep, or something of this sort; and these are both in our power and are possible. ^D

^A We also wish to be kings; yet this is not in our power. We also wish perhaps never to die; but this is among the things that are impossible.

The act of willing has as its object the end, not the things that are for the sake of the end. Now the end is the thing willed, such as to be king or to be in health; but that which is for the sake of the end is the thing deliberated upon, that is, the manner by which we ought to be in health or to be king. And after the willing comes inquiry and consideration, and after these, if it is among the things in our power, comes counsel, that is, deliberation. Counsel is an inquisitive appetite concerning those things that are in our power and are to be done; for one deliberates whether one ought to pursue the matter or not. Then one judges what is better, and this is called judgment. Then one is disposed, and embraces that which was judged by counsel, and it is called an opinion (gnome). For if one judges, but is not disposed toward what was judged—that is, does not embrace it—it is not called an opinion. Then after this disposition comes choice, that is, election; for choice is the selection and choosing of one thing before another when two are set before one. Then one rushes toward the action, and this is called impulse; then one uses it, and it is called use; then the appetite ceases after the use. ^B

Now in irrational creatures, an appetite for something arises, and immediately there is an impulse toward action. For the appetite of irrational creatures is irrational, and they are led by natural appetite; wherefore the appetite of irrational creatures is not even called volition (thelesis) or will (boulesis). For volition is a rational and self-determined natural appetite. But in the case of men, who are rational beings, the natural appetite is led rather than leading. For it is moved self-determinedly and with reason, since the cognitive and vital faculties are joined together in man; therefore he has appetite self-determinedly, wills self-determinedly, inquires and considers self-determinedly, deliberates self-determinedly, judges self-determinedly, is disposed self-determinedly, makes a choice self-determinedly, rushes forward self-determinedly, and acts self-determinedly in those things which are according to nature. ^C

One must know, however, (85) that in God we speak of will, but we do not properly speak of choice. For God does not deliberate; for deliberation belongs to ignorance. For no one deliberates about what he knows. But if counsel is of ignorance, then choice is also. But God, knowing all things simply, does not deliberate. ^D

Furthermore, we do not speak of counsel or choice in the soul of the Lord; for it did not labor under ignorance. Even if it were of a nature that is ignorant of future things, nevertheless, having been united to the Word of God by substance, it had knowledge of all things—not by grace, but, as has been said, on account of the substantial union. For he was the same, both God and man; wherefore he did not have a gnomic will. For he had the natural will, the simple one, which is observed in all the persons of men in the same way; but his holy soul did not have a "gnome"—that is, an object of choice—contrary to his divine will, nor anything other than his divine will. ^B For the "gnome" is divided along with the persons, except in the case of the holy, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible Godhead. For there, since the persons are not altogether divided and separated, neither is the object of choice divided. And there, since there is one nature, the natural will is also one. And since the persons cannot be torn apart, the subject of the will is also one, and the movement of the three persons is one and the same. But among men, since the nature is one, the natural will is also one; but since the persons are separated and are distant from one another by place, and by time, and by disposition toward things, and by many other things, for this reason the wills and the "gnomes" are diverse. But in our Lord Jesus Christ, since the natures are diverse, the natural wills of his divinity and of his humanity—that is, the volitional faculties—are also diverse. But since the person is one, and there is one who wills, the object of the will—that is, the gnomic will—of his human will is one, ^C indeed, following his divine will, and willing those things which the divine will willed that it should will; the human will, indeed, obeying his divine will, and that which his divine will willed it to will.

We must know that it is one thing to speak of the *thelesis* (will), another of the *boulēsis* (counsel), another of the *thelēton* (the object of the will), another of the *thelētikon* (the volitional faculty), and another of the *thelōn* (the one willing). *Thelesis* is the simple power itself of willing. *Boulēsis* is the will directed toward something—that is, what we will—for instance, the appetite is moved toward food. This simple natural appetite is the *thelesis*; it is the *boulēsis* for food; the food itself is the *thelēton*; that which is endowed with the faculty of willing, such as man, is the *thelētikon*; and finally, the *thelōn*, or "one willing," is the one who uses the will. ^D

It must be observed that the word "will" sometimes indicates...

^A the will itself, that is, the willing faculty, and is called natural will; sometimes it indicates the thing willed, and is called gnomic will.

CHAPTER XXIII. On Act

One must know that all the aforementioned faculties—the cognitive, the vital, the natural, and the artificial—are called acts or operations. For an act (*energeia*) is the natural force and motion of every substance. And again: an act is the natural, innate motion of every substance. Hence it is clear that those things which have the same substance, also have the same act; and those which have different natures, also have different acts; for it is impossible for a substance to be devoid of a natural act.

An act is, again, the natural, manifestative force of each substance. And again: an act is the natural and primary perennially-moving force of the intellectual soul; that is, its perennially-moving reason, naturally flowing forth from it without interruption. And again: an act is the natural force and motion of every substance, of which only that which does not exist is deprived.

Acts are also called actions, such as speaking, walking, eating, drinking, and ^B other such things.

Furthermore, act is called the perfection of potentiality.

Act is potentiality spoken of in various ways. — Now, a thing is said to exist in two ways: in potentiality and in act. For we call a nursing infant a grammarian in potentiality, because he is so constituted as to become skilled in the art of grammar by learning. Again, we call a grammarian both a grammarian in potentiality and in act; in act, because he possesses the knowledge of grammar; in potentiality, because he can interpret, though he is not currently ^B performing the interpretation. We call a grammarian an actor again, when he acts, that is, when he interprets. One must therefore know that the second way is common to both potentiality and act; the second way to potentiality, but the first to act.

The primary operation of nature. — The primary, sole, and true operation of nature, or act, is the life which we choose of our own accord, that is, rational and free, by which the human species is constituted. Those who deprive the Lord of this, I know not how they can say that He is God made man.

Act is finally the efficacious motion of nature. Efficacious, moreover, is called that which ^C is moved by itself.

CHAPTER XXIV

Regarding the voluntary and the involuntary.

Since that which is done of one's own accord is in some act, and what is deemed involuntary is in some act, and many ^D some, and that which is truly involunt—

involuntary, they place not only in suffering, but also in doing. One must know that an act is a rational operation. Praise or blame follows upon acts; and some of them are done with pleasure, others with pain; and some of them are desirable to the doer, while others are to be avoided. And of those things to be desired, some are always desirable, others only at a certain time. Likewise also with those things to be avoided. And again, some acts are pitied and deemed worthy of forgiveness, while others are hated and punished. To that which is voluntary, praise or blame ^B always follows, as does being done with pleasure, and the acts being desirable to those who do them, whether always or at the time they are done. To that which is involuntary, there follows being deemed worthy of forgiveness or pity, and being done with pain, and not being desirable, nor the thing done being completed by oneself, even if it is done by force.

The involuntary act is twofold: one is by force, the other by ignorance. It is by force when the productive principle, or cause, is from without, that is, when we are acted upon by another, not being at all persuaded, nor contributing in accord with our own impulse, nor co-operating at all, or performing what is forced of ourselves. And so, defining it, we say: it is involuntary, that of which the principle is from without, with the one forced contributing nothing according to his own impulse. By "principle," we mean the productive cause. But the involuntary by ignorance is when we ourselves do not provide the cause of the ignorance, but it happens to come about. For if someone kills while drunk, he killed while ignorant, but not ^C involuntarily; for the cause of the ignorance, that is, the drunkenness, he brought about himself. But if someone, while shooting in his customary place, killed his father who was passing by, he is said to have done this involuntarily by reason of ignorance.

Since the involuntary is therefore twofold, one by force and the other by ignorance, the voluntary is opposed to both. For the voluntary is that which is done neither by force nor through ignorance. Voluntary, then, is that of which the principle, that is to say the cause, is in oneself, knowing the particulars through which and in which the act is. The particulars are those things which are called by the ^D rhetoricians "circumstantial parts": for instance, "who," that is, the one who acted; "whom," that is, the one who suffered; "what," that is, the thing itself done, for example, he killed; "by what," that is, by what instrument; "where," that is, in what place; "when," that is, in what time; "how," the manner of the act; "why," that is, for what cause.

^A It is to be known that there are some things intermediate between voluntary and involuntary, which, though they are unpleasant and grievous, we accept for the sake of avoiding a greater evil; as when, for fear of shipwreck, we cast the cargo of a ship into the sea.

Children and brute animals act of their own accord, but not from choice. But this also is to be noted, that children and brute animals act of their own accord, but not from choice. Furthermore, those things also which we do when moved by anger, without previous deliberation, we do voluntarily, but not according to choice. And if a friend appears suddenly, he is present to us voluntarily, but not by our choice. And he who comes upon a treasure unexpectedly, falls upon it voluntarily, but not by choice. All these things are voluntary because we take pleasure in them, but they are not according to choice, because they do not arise from counsel. But it is necessary that counsel ^B should precede choice, as has been said.

CHAP. XXV.

Concerning that which is in our power, or free will.

Questions concerning free will. In the discussion of free will, that is, of that which is in our power, this first question arises: whether anything is in our power, for many deny this. The second is, what are those things which are subject to our will, and of what things do we have power. The third is, what is the cause of God’s having made us masters of our own actions. Therefore, beginning ^C from the first, let us first demonstrate from those things which are conceded even by them that some things are in our power, and let us speak as follows.

It is to be known that children and brute animals act voluntarily, but not by choice; and all that we do through passion, without having deliberated, we do voluntarily, but not according to choice. And if a friend suddenly presents himself, he is present to us voluntarily, but not by our choice. And he who unexpectedly encounters a treasure, encounters it voluntarily, but not by choice. All these things are voluntary because they are agreeable to them, but not according to choice, because it is not from counsel. But it is necessary that counsel should precede choice, as has been said.

CHAP. XXV [XXVI].

Concerning that which is in our power, that is, free will.

The discourse concerning free will, that is, that which is in our power, has as its first question whether there is anything that is in our power. For many are those who oppose this. The second is, what are the things that are in our power, and of what do we have authority. The third is, to examine the reason why God who made us, made us masters of our own actions. Having therefore taken up the first point, let us first speak by demonstrating that there are some things in our power, out of the things acknowledged by them, and let us speak thus. ^D [The Fathers defined free will as...] [alt-version omitted]

ON THE ORTHODOX FAITH BOOK II.

^A Of all things that come to pass, some say the cause is God, others necessity, or fate, or nature, or chance, or spontaneity. Now, the work of God is essence and providence; of necessity, the motion of those things that always behave in the same way; of fate, that those things that come to pass through it should happen of necessity—for fate itself imports necessity; of nature, generation, growth, corruption, plants, and animals; of chance, things that are rare and happen beyond expectation. For they define chance as the concurrence of two causes, which, having their beginning from choice, produce something other than what was naturally intended: as when someone digging a pit finds a treasure. For neither he who buried the treasure buried it with the intention that another should find it, nor, again, did he who found it dig with the intention of finding a treasure: but the one, so that when he wished he might take the treasure; the other, so that he might dig a pit. But something else happened, beyond what either had proposed for himself. Finally, they assign to spontaneity those things that happen to inanimate objects or irrational animals without nature or art. Such is their doctrine. To which of these, then, shall we ascribe the things that come to pass through men, if man is not the author and principle of his action? For it is not permissible to ascribe base and wicked actions to God, nor to necessity—for action is not of the class of things that always behave in the same way; nor to fate—for they say that fate is not of contingent things, but of necessary ones. Nor yet to nature; for the works of nature are plants and animals. Nor to chance; for the actions of men are not rare and ^B unexpected. Nor finally to spontaneity; for they say that the events of spontaneity are of inanimate objects or of irrational animals only. It remains, therefore, that man himself, who acts and does, is the author of his own works, and is endowed with free will.

^C Furthermore, if man is the author of no action, it is in vain that the faculty of deliberation has been given to him. For to what end should he use deliberation, if the choice of no action lies within his own power? For all deliberation is entered into for the sake of action. Moreover, to affirm that that which is most noble and most excellent in man is superfluous is of extreme absurdity. And therefore, when he deliberates, he deliberates for the sake of action. For there is no deliberation that is not for the sake of action.

CHAPTER XXVI.

De iis quae fiunt.

^A would actions be said to be done, if the action were not placed within our own power. In a word, all things that bring either praise or blame, and for which laws and counsels are given. But properly in our power are those things which pertain to the soul, and about which we deliberate. And deliberation concerns those things which can equally turn out in either way. Now that which can equally turn out is that which we are able to do, and which is its opposite; ^B the choice of this depends upon our mind, for this is the principle of action. Therefore, in us are these things which can happen in either way, such as: to be moved and not to be moved; to be incited and not to be incited; to desire those things which are not necessary and not to desire; to lie and not to lie; to give and not to give; to rejoice when it is fitting, and similarly not to rejoice, and where it is not fitting; and other things of this kind, in which the duties of virtue and vice are involved. For the free power over these is ours. Among those things which can equally turn out in either way, arts are numbered. For it is within our power to cultivate them and not to cultivate them. It must be observed, however, that while the choice of those things which fall under action is always in our power, the action itself is often hindered by a certain reason of Providence.

CAP. XXVII. For what reason we are endowed with free will.

^C Created things are by their own nature mutable. The freedom of the will is annexed to reason. There is no freedom of the will in brutes. ^D Therefore, we say that along with reason there also approaches the freedom of the will, and that changeableness and mutability are innate to created things. For everything that is created is also mutable. For if the beginning of its being began from change, it is necessary that these things be mutable. But change is the being brought forth into existence from non-existence, and the coming to be of something else from the subject matter. Things therefore which are inanimate and irrational are changed according to the aforementioned corporeal alterations, but the rational things, according to choice. For of the rational, one part is contemplative, and the other is practical. The contemplative is that which considers things as they are; but the practical is that which deliberates and prescribes right reason for things to be done; and they call the contemplative "mind" and the practical "reason"; and the one contemplative, "wisdom," and the practical, "prudence." Therefore, everyone who deliberates, deliberates as if the choice of the things to be done were in his own power, so that he might take what is selected from the deliberation, and having selected, might act. If this is so, then by necessity free will exists in the rational being; for either it will not be rational, or, being rational, it will be the master of its actions, and have free will. Whence even irrational creatures are not possessed of free will; for they are led by nature more than they lead, and therefore they do not argue against natural desire, but as soon as they desire something, they are moved toward the action.

Man, on the contrary, being a participant in reason, leads his nature rather than being led by it. Hence, it happens that even when he desires something, he has the power to restrain his desire if he wishes, or to follow it. This is also the reason why brute animals are neither praised nor blamed; while man, on the contrary, is susceptible to both praise and blame.

^B Know that angels, being rational, are self-determined and, as created beings, are mutable. This is clearly shown by the devil who, although created good by the Creator, became of his own free will the inventor of evil, along with the powers that apostatized with him—that is to say, the demons—while the rest of the angelic hosts remained in the good.

CHAP. XXVIII.

Concerning those things that are not in our power.

Things that are not in our power depend on God alone. Of those things, however, that are not in our own will, some have their origin or cause in those things that are in our will, such as the retribution for our actions, both in the present and in the future age; but all other things depend on the will of God. For the birth of all things is from God; but corruption was brought in on account of our wickedness for our punishment and benefit. For God did not make death, nor ^C does He take pleasure in the destruction of the living; but rather, through man—that is, through the transgression of Adam—death and the other punishments were inflicted. But all other things must be referred to God. For our birth looks to His creative power; our preservation, to His sustaining power; our governance and salvation, to the power of His providence over all; and finally, all the enjoyment of the eternal good things that await those who have kept what is in accordance with nature—for which we were created—is to be ascribed to His goodness. But since some contradict providence, let us now discuss it briefly. ^D

Chapter XXIX. Concerning Providence.

^A Providence is, therefore, the care that comes from God unto existing things. And again, providence is the will of God, by which all existing things receive their fitting guidance. But if providence is the will of God, then by necessity all things that come to pass through providence, according to the right reason, come to pass in the most beautiful and God-befitting manner, and in such a way that they could not possibly have come to be in a better way. For it is necessary that the Creator of beings and the provider for them be the same; for it is neither fitting nor consistent for one to be the Creator of beings and another to be the provider. For in this way, both would be entirely in weakness—the one in creating, and the other in providing. God, therefore, is both Creator and provider; and His power of creation, and of sustaining, and of providing, is His good will: “For all that the Lord willed, He has done in heaven and on earth; and who has resisted His will?” He willed all things to come to be, and they have come to be; He wills for the world to consist, and it consists; and whatever He wills, comes to pass.

^B That He provides, and that He provides well, one might most correctly consider in this way: God alone is by nature good and wise. As He is good, therefore, He provides; for he who does not provide is not good. For indeed, even men and brute beasts provide for their own offspring by natural affection, and he who does not provide is blamed. And as He is wise, He cares for existing things in the best possible way.

^C One ought, therefore, paying attention to these things, to admire all things, to praise all things, and to accept without questioning the works of providence, even if they seem to many to be unjust, because the providence of God is unknown and incomprehensible, and our thoughts and actions, and future things, are known to Him alone. But when I say "all things," I speak of those things which are not within our power; for the things that are within our power are not of providence, but of our own free will.

^A Of those things that fall under providence, some are by way of divine approval and others by way of permission. Now, although all things that fall under providence are in part by God’s good pleasure and in part by permission, all things that are undoubtedly good come to pass by approval; but there are many kinds of permission. For often God permits a righteous man to fall into calamities, that the virtue latent within him may be made manifest to others, as happened in the case of Job. Occasionally, He permits something that seems evil to be done, so that by an action which has the appearance of wickedness, some great and marvelous thing may be accomplished; just as through the cross He procured salvation for mankind. In another way, He allows a pious man to be afflicted by grievous hardships, lest he should fall away from a right conscience, or lest, through the power and grace divinely granted to him, he should slip into pride—as in the case of Paul.

^B Why He abandons one and another. Sometimes a person is abandoned to be a lesson for others, so that those who see his calamitous state may draw a lesson from it, as in the case of the rich man and Lazarus. For we are so constituted by nature that when we see others afflicted, we feel restrained. Again, a person is abandoned for the sake of another’s glory, and not because of his own sins or those of his parents—just as the man blind from birth was for the glory of the Son of Man. Furthermore, someone is permitted to suffer something grievous to arouse in the souls of others a zeal for emulation; for by the glory of the one who has suffered being increased, others may the more readily endure adversities, led by the hope of future glory and the desire for the goods to come, as happens in the case of the martyrs. Finally, someone is permitted to fall into an obscene act, so that by this means a graver vice may be dispelled. For example: let there be someone whose virtues and righteousness make him proud; God permits this man to fall into fornication, so that by such a fall, recognizing his own weakness, he may be humbled and approach to confess his sins to the Lord.

^A It should be known that the choice of things to be done is within our power, but the end of good actions is to be ascribed to the aid of God, who justly grants His help to those who choose the good with an upright conscience, according to His foreknowledge; while the end of evil actions is to be ascribed to the abandonment by God, who justly abandons the wicked according to His foreknowledge.

There are two kinds of abandonment. There is an abandonment by way of dispensation and education, and there is a total abandonment by way of final reprobation. The abandonment by way of dispensation and education is that which occurs for the amendment and salvation and glory of the one who suffers, or even to stir up others to emulation, or finally to contribute to the glory of God. But a total abandonment occurs when, although God has left no kind of remedy untried, the man remains dull and unhealed—or, to speak better, incurable—because of his own inclination. Then he is given over to total destruction, as was Judas. May God spare us, and deliver us from such an abandonment.

It must be known that there are many ways of divine providence, which can neither be explained in words nor comprehended by the mind. ^B Nor should this be ignored: that all the impulses of harsh things are brought upon those who receive them with thanksgiving for their salvation, and they become a cause of great benefit to them.

Of the Antecedent and Consequent Will of God

^C It should be known that God ^D wills antecedent and consequent. Antecedent will is, as it were, the primary will, such as that all men should be saved and come to His kingdom—for He did not create us to punish us, but that we might partake of His goodness—and so that those who sin might not perish. Consequent will is, as it were, the secondary will, such as that those who are addicted to evil should perish. For he does not punish them by necessity, but by their own will. Another passage exists in the homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which he indicates this dual will, by explaining why it happened that God commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, which the Scripture nevertheless testifies He did not want. This distinction between the two divine wills had been made long before. For Hierocles, in Photius, cod. 251, observes that Plato in the book *Of Laws* taught that God, indeed by an antecedent will, bestows good and fitting things upon men and preserves them—for "there is," as he says, "the antecedent gift of goods"—and [by] the other, the consequent [will], inflicts punishments for committed crimes and transfers the good to a blessed life. Saint Thomas approves of the sentiment of the Damascene, part 1, q. 19, a. 6; and neither he nor the other Greeks imply that this applies only to the state of innocence. Indeed, most of the Fathers, and especially the Orientals, teach by consensus that God, inasmuch as He is supremely good and a lover of souls, has a propense desire to will that all men absolutely should be saved.

^A For He did not fashion us to punish us, but that we might partake of His goodness, as He is good. Yet He wills that sinners should be punished, as He is just.

It is said, therefore, that the first is the antecedent will, and the good pleasure, coming from Him; but the second is the consequent will, and the permission, arising from our own cause. And this is twofold: the one is economical and educative for our salvation; the other is condemnatory for complete punishment, as we have said. These things pertain to those matters which are not in our power.

As for those things which are in our power, God, in the first place, wills and takes pleasure in what is good. ^B But evil things, and what are truly wicked, He wills neither antecedently nor consequently; He permits them to [our] free will. For what is done by force is neither reasonable nor virtuous. [Note: 1 Tim. ii, 4. Matth. viii, 30 seqq.] God provides for all of creation, and through all creation He bestows benefits, and by means of [these] He exercises care and education, and often through them [permits] the works of demons, as in the case of Job and the pigs, so that through these things He might bring benefit and deliverance.

CAP. XXX. Of prescience and predestination.

One must know that God foreknows all things, but He does not predetermine all things. ^D

^A For He foreknows those things which are within our power, but He does not predetermine them. For He does not will that wickedness should happen, nor does He force virtue. So that predestination is the work of divine foreknowledge and command. But He does predetermine those things that are not within our power according to His foreknowledge. For God has already, according to His foreknowledge, predetermined all things according to His goodness and His justice.

Virtue is implanted in nature by God, that is, it is consonant with it, so that nature may be capable of it. One must also know that virtue is implanted in our nature by God, and that He Himself is ^B the source and cause of all good, and without His cooperation (98) and aid, it is impossible to desire or do good. It is in our power, however, either to remain in virtue and follow God, or to depart from virtue and follow the devil—which is to turn from the good to evil, that is, to sin.

NOTES

^C ...it was, or vice, he fell, says Damascene: similarly, as Clement of Alexandria observes in book VI of the *Stromata* against the Gnostics: *We are by nature capable of virtue;* but not so as to possess it from birth, but rather we are suited to acquire it, not that we have it from nativity, but we are qualified for its acquisition. For because the study of virtue is according to reason, we have a certain kinship with it. This capacity, however, is a propensity toward virtue; but it is not virtue itself. But this author is not to be heeded where he denies that the virtues themselves were implanted by God in Adam. Jerome, in chapter 1 of the *Epistle to the Galatians*, following the Greek expositors, says that man is not born without Christ, nor is he devoid of the seeds of wisdom and justice, and the other virtues. Yet with this doctrine Pelagius afterwards abused, so as to exclude the necessity of God's grace. Better does Nazianzen, in his *Poem on Human Virtue*, teach that it was granted to man by God to be suited for the good, and then that virtue is added: *He rendered the good receivable, and grants the strength.*

^D (98) *And without His cooperation.* And without His aid. He said that God is the cause of all good: he appends that we need His aid not only to act, but also to will, and thus recognizes the necessity of prior grace. Because the Greek Fathers commonly speak in such a way as if the beginnings of faith and the good work were in our power, and that then, when we will, God adds grace, our Combefisius settles the difficulty. In [his] note on the sermon of Clement of Alexandria entitled, *Who is the Rich Man That Is Being Saved?* Clement had said: *A man applying his own exertion to virtue, so that when the passions are repressed he may arrive at a tranquil state of soul, achieves nothing thereby. But if his desire should burn more vehemently, and he should display every diligence; by the addition of strength from God, he attains the object of his prayers by the divine virtue joined to him.* For God breathes upon willing souls. But if [the man] departs from his begun promptness, even the given spirit is withdrawn. For to bestow virtue upon the unwilling would be the act of one who uses force. Since these things have drawn some into the suspicion of Pelagianism, Combefisius says: *To me, rather, this is an exalted commendation of grace, and an explanation of our efforts toward it; as if the first thing is to will, it is useless to us, and not even to will [is possible], unless grace excites, which is the "given spirit," making the very willing possible, and which is also withdrawn from those not willing, so that by the addition of power from God, they may become masters of virtue.* Similar things are found in Ambrose, Chrysostom, and other Fathers, which aim at the same point, by which they do not eliminate grace; but (as Paul does) they exhort us not to receive it in vain. And very unjust is he who...

^A imputes Pelagianism to Chrysostom or other Fathers because they said that God inspires them with a heavenly motion, whom He foresaw would agree with Him. For, as the most learned Petavius observes, they do not establish a meritorious cause for divine grace, as it is called, but an opportunity for gratuitous largesse. For men are not moved by God in the manner of inanimate objects; but since they possess free will, and are so disposed that, according to the varying circumstances of things and times, they embrace one thing or another, toward which they would otherwise in no wise be moved; who would deny that God, the ruler of the universe, also ^B employs these, in order to convert those whom He has purposed to save? For "To those who love God all things work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose" (Rom. VIII, 28). Thus, without loss to the gratuitous calling, Chrysostom affirms in his homily on the Epistle to the Romans that Matthew the publican was summoned because of his innate goodness; and Paul, although he had raged against the faithful, says that he obtained mercy because ^C he did it in ignorance. ^D

^A For what is sin, if not a withdrawal from the good, even as darkness is a withdrawal from light? Therefore, remaining in accordance with nature, we are in virtue; but turning away from that which is in accordance with nature—that is, from virtue—we come to that which is against nature, and we come to be in vice.

200 Repentance is a return from that which is against nature to that which is according to nature, and from the devil to God, through the pursuit of a pious life and through labors and exercises.

— Homo masculus conditus. This man, therefore, the supreme Artificer created as male, imparting to him His own divine grace and, through this, making him a participant in Himself; whence he also masterfully gave names to the animals, as if they were slaves given to him, in the manner of a prophet. For having been created in the image of God, being rational, intellectual, and self-determining, it was fitting that he should be entrusted with the lordship of all earthly things by the common Artificer and Master of all things. ^B

The creation of the female for the future propagation of the human race, which had been condemned to death. But since God, in His foreknowledge [(99)], knew that he would fall into transgression and be subject to corruption, He made from him a female, a helper for him like unto himself; a helper, I say, for the existence of the race through generation by succession after the transgression. For the first formation is called "creation" (genesis), and not "generation" (genesis). For creation is the first formation from God; generation, however, is that which follows upon the sentence of death due to the transgression, through the succession of one from another. ^C

He placed him in the paradise, both the spiritual and—

⟨NOTÆ.⟩ ...(As for) the foreknowledge of God, etc. This is a common assertion of the Greeks, that God created the woman for this reason, because He foresaw that the human race, upon death being inflicted on account of Adam’s sin, would immediately be destroyed, unless it were propagated by the union of man with his wife. Thus think Athanasius, among others, in *Ps.* L; Chrysostom, *Hom. in Gen.*; Nyssen, *De opif. hom.* But because God foresaw that man would fail only through the persuasion of the woman, let the reader inquire how these things cohere. Truly the ancient doctors, while they took heed against new doctrines and with reverence collected the opinions of the ancients, sometimes wrote things that were incoherent and contradictory. But that they should think thus concerning the union of man and wife, they were led primarily by the belief that it could not have happened without lust, of which Adam was immune: nay, rather, they held it for certain that it burned only on account of sin. Whence it is recited here among the errors of the Messalians that they said Adam in paradise had intercourse without any heat of lust. But Nyssen and our own (Damascene) concede that other modes of multiplying the human species were not lacking to God, if the state of innocence had remained; just as, for example, He produced the multitude of the angels. Athanasius Minor thinks it would have been thus, *Quaest. ad Antiochum*; yet he adds that some estimate that since God created male and female, from this it is evident that He intended the human race to be established, and not for this to happen *per peccatum* (through sin), or with lust, but with honor. This Saint Thomas approves, I part., q. 98, art. 2; indeed, Marius Mercator in his subnotations to the chapters of Julian, and Augustine, *lib. De nupt. et concup.*, cap. 15, and elsewhere.

^A For while dwelling in the sensible realm upon earth, he lived in the body, but in spirit he consorted with the angels, cultivating divine reflections, and being nourished by them; naked in his simplicity, and with an unstudied life, he was led upward only to the Creator through the things created, and was strengthened and delighted by the contemplation of Him.

Since, therefore, He had adorned him with free will by nature, He gives him a law, not to taste of the tree of knowledge. Of which tree we have spoken sufficiently in the chapter on Paradise, according to our ability. This commandment He gives him, promising that if he should guard the dignity of his soul, giving the victory to reason, recognizing the Creator, and keeping His command, he would partake of eternal blessedness, and would live forever, having become superior to death. But if he were to subject his soul to the body, and prefer the pleasures of the body, unaware of his own honor ^B and having been compared to the senseless cattle, casting off the yoke of the Maker and ignoring His divine command, he would be liable to death, and subject to corruption and pain, dragging out a wretched life. For it was not expedient that he who was yet untempted and unproved ^C should attain to immortality, lest he should fall into pride and the judgment of the devil; for that one, because of the incorruption he possessed, after the fall from his free will, acquired a firmness in evil that was unrepentant and immutable; just as, on the other hand, the angels, after their free-will selection of virtue, were established *through divine grace* in a fixity that cannot be moved from the good.

It was necessary, therefore, for man to be tested first; for a person who is untempted and unproved is worth nothing. And by the trial through the keeping of the commandment, he would be perfected, and thus attain immortality as the reward of virtue. For, having been made a mediator between God and matter, he was constituted in such a way that if he had obeyed the commandment, having left behind his natural affinity for created things, and having been united to God by direct affection, he was to receive a fixity in the good that could not be moved; but if, by the transgression, he were to turn rather toward matter, and draw his mind away from his Cause—I mean God—he would appropriate corruption to himself, and become subject to passion instead of impassibility, and mortal instead of immortal, and would stand in need of union and fluid generation; and through the desire for life, he would cling to pleasant things as though they were sustaining it, while he would hold in stubborn hatred those who sought to take these things away from him; and transferring his desire from God to matter, he would transfer his passionate nature from the true enemy of salvation... ^D

to his own kin. ^A Man was therefore conquered; for the envious and evil-hating devil, who had himself fallen through pride, could not bear that we should attain to the things above. Wherefore, he deceived the wretched man with the lying hope of divinity, and having brought him up to the own height of his pride, he cast him down into the same abyss of ruin. ^B

(1) By the envy, then, of the devil. Man was vanquished, etc. That he brings back the loss of the good things which man possessed in his innocence from the well-worn tradition, and especially from Nazianzen; whose words, however, he omitted some, by which the doctrine of original sin is set forth. After—the Theologian says (Orat. 38 and 42)—the envy of the devil and the impression of the woman, whom he used as one more suitable for persuasion, "Woe is me for my infirmity! For mine is that of my first parent." In Orat. 5 he says: "We have all tasted of the same tree of wickedness." And Orat. 18: "May they not have affected me, those first tastes of ours, from which we have perished, the offspring, whatsoever draws its origin from that first tasting of ours, through which we perish." Wherefore he thus lashes Apollinaris, as if Christ, by omitting the human mind, did not save me entirely, "a whole man having fallen and been condemned on account of the disobedience of the first-created." ^B Regarding the transmission of the sin of Adam to his descendants, and even to those whose parents have been regenerated by baptism, one must primarily read Cyril of Alexandria, lib. i Cont. Anthropomorph. c. 8. I do not gather more places of the Greeks, all aiming at the same point. I shall only add the testimony of Anastasius of Antioch, lib. vi in Hexaem., where he also cites Olympiodorus, deacon and interpreter of the Alexandrian Church: "He renews," he says, "what has been often proposed,"—and as for the philosopher who enlightened the Alexandrian Church with his teachings, as its deacon, when he claims that man was created in complete immortality and incorruption, while bringing forward as an argument for corruption, blessing, and likewise male and female, and being fellow-animals, and food for himself as for the beasts. Truly, he says, the laver of those who are baptized in Christ has a true and perfect cleansing of the primogenial fault of Adam, which took hold of us... "He brings into the middle the lawlessness dared from above by our ancestors, and says that this became the source of these streams: Lo, indeed, I was conceived in iniquities." He says that he brings forward that iniquity which our first parents committed through the supreme crime, and says that it became the source of these effusions. For if they had not sinned, they would not have been punished with death: if death were removed, corruption would escape; immunity from perturbations would be an associate of incorruption; no place for sin would remain. But from the moment they sinned, they were addicted to corruption: having become corruptible, they begot sons like themselves, into whom, from that time, fears, desires, and passions are derived. Those ancient ones indeed, when they speak of the primogenial fault, mostly mention only the infliction of corporal death; because, of course, as Theodoret teaches in dial. 3, Eranistes, the body which was infected by the touch and taste of the forbidden wood, thence drew that it should perish; but the soul, because it existed as the cause of sin, was rendered liable to eternal punishment, which it would suffer together with the body, being delivered with the body to Gehenna.

BOOK THREE

CHAPTER I.

Since man was seduced by the assault of the devil, the author of evil, and did not keep the commandment of the Creator, and was stripped of grace, and cast off the confidence he had toward God, and was covered with the harshness of a miserable life—for this is what the fig leaves signify—and was clothed in the deadness, that is, the mortality and coarseness of the flesh—for this is the meaning of the coats of skins—and was banished from Paradise by the just judgment of God, and was made subject to death and corruption: He who is merciful, who had bestowed upon him both his being and his well-being, did not overlook him. ^B But after having chastened him in many ways beforehand through many means—by groaning and trembling, by the flood of waters, and through the destruction of almost the entire human race, by the confusion and division of tongues, by the stewardship of angels, by the conflagration of cities, by typical manifestations of God, by wars, victories, defeats, signs, and wonders, by various powers, by the Law, and by the prophets—through all of which the objective was the destruction of sin, which, by creeping in in many ways, had enslaved man and had brought every kind of evil upon the world, so that, once it was removed, a return to the blessed life might be open to man—for death had entered into the world through sin, like some wild and savage beast ^C infesting the life of man—it was necessary, since he who was to act in the capacity of Redeemer had to be entirely free from sin and not subject to death on account of sin, that nature be strengthened and renewed, and that he be taught by deed and instructed in the way of virtue, which would lead him back from destruction to eternal life. It was thus that He finally revealed the great ocean of His benevolence toward him. For the Creator and Lord Himself undertakes the struggle for His own handiwork ^D, and becomes a teacher by deed; and because the enemy was tempting man with the hope of divinity,

^A he is in turn caught by the bait of the flesh, as by a hook: and at the same time, a manifestation is given of the goodness, wisdom, justice, and power of God. Goodness, because He did not overlook the weakness of His own creation, but had compassion on him who had fallen and reached out His hand. Justice, because when man had been defeated, He does not cause another to conquer the tyrant, nor does He snatch man from death by force; but him whom death had long ago enslaved on account of sin, this same man does the good and just One make conqueror again, and by like he saved like—a thing which seemed impossible; and wisdom, because He found the most fitting solution to that which was impossible. ^B For the good pleasure of God and the Father, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, and God, who was in the bosom of God and the Father, He who is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the pre-eternal, the beginningless, He who was in the beginning and was with God and the Father and was God, He who was in the form of God, bowing the heavens comes down; that is, having humbled His own height, which cannot be humbled, without humiliation, He descends to His own servants in a condescension both ineffable and incomprehensible—for this is what "descent" signifies. And being perfect God, He becomes perfect man, and the most novel of all novel things is brought to pass, the only thing that is new under the sun, through which the infinite power of God is made manifest. For what is greater than for God to become man? And the Word was made flesh ^C without change, of the Holy Spirit and of Mary, the holy and ever-virgin Theotokos. And He acts as mediator between God and men, the only lover of mankind, conceived in the immaculate womb of the Virgin, not by the will of man, or by desire, or by the union of a husband, or by generation joined with pleasure, but of the Holy Spirit and the first formation of Adam. And He becomes obedient to the Father, after the manner of us, and by the nature assumed from us, He heals our disobedience, and becomes for us a pattern of obedience, without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.

CAP. II.

On the manner of the conception of the Word, and of His divine incarnation.

For the angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who was sprung from the race of David. ^D For it is manifest that our Lord sprang from Judah, from which tribe no one attended at the altar, as the divine Apostle has handed down; concerning which matter we shall discourse more accurately later. To her he also brings the joyful tidings...

^A saying: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." She, however, was troubled at the word; and the angel says to her: "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found grace with the Lord, and you shall conceive a son, and you shall call His name Jesus. For He Himself shall save His people from their sins." Whence "Jesus" is also interpreted as "Savior." But as she was questioning, "How shall this be to me, since I do not know a man?" the angel again says to her: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Therefore also that which is born of you, being holy, shall be called the Son of God." And she to him: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, let it be to me according to your word."

After, therefore, the consent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit came upon her according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, ^B both purifying her and providing her with the power to receive the divinity of the Word, and at the same time the power to give birth. And then the subsistent Wisdom and Power of God the Most High overshadowed her—the Son of God, I mean, He who is consubstantial with the Father—like a divine seed, and compacted for Himself out of her chaste and most pure blood a body animated by a rational and intelligent soul, being the first-fruits of our lump. This was done not by seminal generation, but by creation, through the Holy Spirit; not by the figure being perfected by little and little through additions, but by the whole being perfected at once, the Word of God Himself having become ^C the hypostasis for the flesh. For the divine Word was not united to a body that had already pre-existed by itself, but, having taken up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He realized for Himself—without circumscription, in His own hypostasis—from the chaste blood of the ever-virgin, a body animated by a rational and intelligent soul; the Word Himself, having assumed the first-fruits of the human lump, became the hypostasis for the flesh. So that at once there is flesh, at once the flesh of God the Word, at once flesh animate ^D with a rational and intelligent soul. Therefore we do not say that it is a man who has been deified, but that it is God who has become man.

For He who is by nature perfect God, the same did become by nature perfect man; not changing His nature, nor masking the economy, but by the flesh taken from the holy Virgin, animated rationally and intelligently, and receiving its existence in Him, He was personally united, without confusion and without change, and without division, not having changed the nature of His Godhead into the substance of the flesh, nor the substance of the flesh into the nature of His Godhead, nor having fashioned one composite nature out of His divine nature and the human nature which He assumed. ^B

Chapter III. Concerning the two natures, against the Monophysites.

For the natures were united to one another without conversion and without change, neither the divine nature departing from its proper simplicity, nor indeed the human, either turned into the nature of Godhead or passing into non-existence, nor did one composite nature result from the two. For a composite nature cannot be consubstantial with either of those natures from which it was composed, having been made something else out of others. For example: the body, which is composed of the four elements, is held not to be of the same substance as fire, nor is it called fire, nor is it called air, nor water, nor earth, nor does it have the same substance as any of these. If, therefore, according to the heretics, Christ after the union exists of one composite nature, He has changed from a simple nature into a composite one, and He is not consubstantial with the Father being of a simple nature, nor with the Mother. For it is not from Godhead ^C and humanity that this [nature] is composed; nor is it in Godhead and humanity; neither...

index: VARIÆ LECTIONES and NOTÆ (explanatory remarks regarding the text) entries preserved

shall He be named God, nor man, but Christ alone. And the name Christ shall be, for them, not the name of the Person, but of the one nature according to them. ^A We, however, teach that Christ is of a composite nature, not as if one thing were made from others, as man is from soul and body, or a body from four elements, but as being from different things, the same things: for we confess that from Godhead and humanity He is perfect God, the same one, and that He is, and is spoken of, as being from two, and in two natures. ^B We say that the name Christ is the name of the Person, which is not spoken in a single way, but is significant of the two natures. For He Himself anointed Himself—anointing His body with His own Godhead as God, and being anointed as man—for He Himself is both this and that. And the anointing is the Godhead of the humanity. For if Christ is of one composite nature, and is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father will also be composite, and consubstantial with the flesh, which is absurd and full of every blasphemy.

To these things, how shall one and the same nature be capable of substantial differences that contradict each other? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?

If, while saying that Christ is of one nature, they should say that this is simple, they will either confess Him to be God strictly, and will introduce a phantasy, not an incarnation, or ^C [alt-version omitted]

[NOTE on text:] ...but also these things. One and the same [person] existing as both this and that. And observe that he did not say existing *from* this and that; for that, "this and that," is altogether two, even if he should not wish it. Again, the same [Cyril] writes thus to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium: "Therefore it is confessed that that which is from the flesh is flesh, and that which is from God is God. But Christ is according to Himself both, being one Son and one Lord with His own flesh." But for Christ to be both, what else is it than for Christ to be two natures? For he did not say here that He is *from* both, but that Christ is both, or that Christ is the two, while yet He is one. ^D Eutyches had said that from two natures one had been made: but Leo the Great wrote back to Flavian of Constantinople that Christ exists also in two natures: which the Chalcedonian Fathers decreed must be confessed. In the editions of the acts of this synod, for [Greek text] is read [Greek text], which error ought to be corrected from Evagrius and others, who testify that the Monophysites abhorred that expression as unheard of by Cyril and in past centuries. As if Cyril, by writing to Successus that Christ is perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity, had not signified that He exists in two perfect natures. Nicephorus Callistus, in book XVII of his History, ch. 46, says that Nazianzen pronounced that Christ preserves those things in which, and out of which, and which He is; which, however, I have not found in his works.

^A

[h207 Monophysite error: that they do not distinguish nature from person./h]

But this is the very cause of the heretics’ error: that they establish nature and hypostasis as the same thing. For although we say that the nature of men is one, we must know that we do not say this by looking at the account of the soul and the body; for it is impossible to say that the soul and the body, when compared with each other, are of one nature. But because there are many hypostases of men, and all admit the same account of nature—for all are composed of soul and body, and all have participated in the nature of the soul, and possess the substance of the body, and the common species—we say that the plurality of different hypostases is one nature, with each hypostasis ^B clearly possessing two natures and subsisting in two natures, namely, of soul and body.

[hNOTES./h]

(10) *But this is…* Concerning the various acceptations of terms, it has been said in the *Dialectics*. When the holy Fathers, who had written on the Trinity, were cited against the Monophysites to the effect that they had distinguished person and hypostasis from nature, the latter chiefly abused this dictum of Nazianzen, who pronounced that in the incarnation new natures were made, so as to conclude that one thing is meant by the terms "nature" or "hypostasis" when the discourse is of the Trinity, and another when of the incarnation. Severus, in his second epistle to John, where he argues about Christ’s one operation based on the Dionysiac writings, says: "Indeed, we confess that God was made man in a new way, and expressed a one, God-man-like nature and hypostasis in his life, just as there is one nature of God the Word and one that has been made flesh." For the account of the economy, having innovated the natures, also innovated the appellations for them. Thus Severus, whose argument Leontius refutes in his book against him.

(11) *For when we say one…* Essence and common species are the same to the Fathers, and especially to those who flourished after the Council of Chalcedon: person and hypostasis also signify the same thing, that is, the individual and singular. Here, however, the Monophysites are met at their chief point, which they had received from Nazianzen’s epistle to Cledonius, where he says: "For there are two natures, God and man, just as body and soul." Cyril and others, who wrote before Eutyches, adduce the same example of man consisting of body and soul. Our author, however, with Leontius, Eulogius of Alexandria, and Anastasius Sinaita, denies ^C that human nature is called composite because of the multitude of individuals that are constituted by two natures, namely, body and soul. He had established this same thing in *Dialectica*, ch. 66. Maximus favors this in his *Epistle to John the Cubicularius*, where he also adds a certain scholium of Cyril, in which he is said to have stated: "Neither is the name of Christ a definition, nor does it have the power of a definition, nor does it declare anyone’s essence; but it expresses the person of the Word, which is conceived as having assumed flesh endowed with an intelligent soul." In his book *On the Two Wills*, he infers from the same scholium that the composite person of Christ is not strictly an individual, because it has neither genus nor species. But this scholium seems to me more recent than Cyril. Whatever be the case, another solution is brought forward from St. Maximus in the *Collectanea* which I just cited: he says that it is the property of every composite nature to be such that it has coeval parts; that it exists when previously it did not; that the parts are referred to one another by a natural relation, and are endowed with virtues appropriate to their own nature by which they mutually receive one another; and finally, that they are joined without the choice of either, as happens in the case of soul and body. But such are not the divinity and humanity of Christ. Another distinction is suggested by Eulogius in Photius and Leontius, in the tract *On Sects*, namely, not to say that man is a body or a soul, because body and soul are parts of a nature; but rightly to say that Christ is man, Christ is God; and that man is God, and God is man. ^D

^A But in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is not possible to accept a common species. For there neither was, nor is, nor ever will be another Christ from divinity and humanity, in divinity and humanity—the same being perfect God and perfect man. Hence, it is not possible to speak of one nature in our Lord Jesus Christ, as one does in the case of an individual composed of soul and body, such that it is likewise regarding Christ: that he is from divinity and humanity. For there, it is an individual; but Christ is by no means an individual, for he does not have a "Christ-ness" species that can be predicated of him.

Therefore, we say that the union has occurred from two perfect natures, divine and human; not by mingling, or confusion, or blending ^B or tempering, as the godless Dioscorus said, and Eutyches, and Severus, and their unholy gang; nor by a personal union, or a relative one, or one by dignity, or by identity of will, or equality of honor, or identity of name, or by good pleasure, as the God-hated Nestorius said, and Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and their demonic assembly; but by composition—that is, according to hypostasis—without conversion, and without confusion, and without alteration, and without division, and without separation. And in two natures existing perfectly, we confess the one hypostasis of the Son of God, who has become incarnate, saying that the hypostasis of his divinity and of his humanity is the same, and confessing that the two natures are preserved in him after the union—not setting each apart and in isolation, but united to one another in the one composite hypostasis.

For we say that the union is substantial—that is to say, true, and not in imagination. And "substantial" not in the sense that the two natures have produced one composite nature, but that they have been united to one another in truth into one composite hypostasis of the Son of God. Nay, we maintain that their substantial difference is preserved entire and intact. ^C For the created remained what was created, and the uncreated, uncreated. The mortal remained mortal, and the immortal, immortal. The circumscribed, circumscribed; the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed. The visible, visible, and the invisible, invisible. “The one shines forth with miracles, the other is subjected to injuries.”

Communication of Idioms.

The Word, moreover, because those things which belong to his holy flesh are his own, claims for himself the things that pertain to the humanity, and in turn transmits to the flesh those things that are his own, by way of the reciprocity ^D of the parts' interpenetration.

^A And the same one is he who works both the divine and the human [acts] in either form, with the communion of the other. ^B Hence, the Lord of glory is also said to have been crucified, even though his divine nature did not suffer; and the ^C Son of Man is acknowledged to have been in heaven before the passion, as the Lord himself asserted. For he was one and the same Lord of glory, who by nature and in truth was the Son of Man, that is, who became man; and we acknowledge both his miracles and his sufferings, even though he worked miracles according to one [nature], and the same one underwent sufferings according to another. For we know that, just as his hypostasis is one, so also the essential difference of the natures is preserved. But how could the difference be preserved if those things that have the difference are not preserved in relation to one another? For a difference is a difference of things that differ. Now, by the principle by which the natures of Christ differ from one another—that is, by the principle of essence—we say that he is joined to the extremes: according to his divinity, with the Father and the Spirit; and according to his humanity, with his Mother and all men. But by the principle whereby his natures are joined, we say that he differs from the Father and the Spirit, and from his Mother and the rest of mankind; for his natures are joined in his hypostasis, having one composite hypostasis, according to which he differs from the Father and the Spirit, and from his Mother and us.

NOTE

CAP. IV. On the manner of the mutual communication of properties

^A That substance and hypostasis are different, and that substance signifies the common and comprehensive species of those which are of the same species—such as God and man—while hypostasis signifies the individual, such as Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Peter, or Paul, we have often said. It must be known, therefore, that the name of "divinity" and "humanity" is indicative of substances, that is, of natures; but the name "God" and "man" is applied both to the nature, as when we say, "God is an incomprehensible substance," and "there is one God," and it is also taken for the hypostases, inasmuch as that which is more particular receives the name of that which is more general, as when Scripture says: *Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee* (Ps. xlv, 8). For behold, it indicated the Father and the Son. And as when it says: *There was a certain man in the land of Ausitis* (Job i, 1)—for it wished to indicate Job alone.

^B Therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, since we acknowledge two natures but one hypostasis composed from both, when we contemplate the natures, we call them divinity and humanity. But when we contemplate the hypostasis composed from the natures, we sometimes name Him Christ from both joined together, and God and man at the same time, and God incarnate; and sometimes from one of the parts, God alone, and Son of God, and man alone, and Son of Man; and sometimes from the exalted things only, sometimes from the humble things only. For He is one, who is the same both in this way and that, of which one has existed always from the Father without cause, while the other was made later for His benevolence toward men.

^C When, therefore, we speak of divinity, we do not name the properties of humanity along with it. For we do not say that divinity is passible or created. Nor do we attribute the properties of divinity to the flesh, that is, to the humanity; for we do not call the flesh, or humanity, uncreated. But in the case of the hypostasis, whether we name it from both joined together or from one of the parts, we attribute to it the properties of both natures. For Christ, which is the sum of both, is called both God and man, and created and uncreated, and passible and impassible. And when He is named from one of the parts, as Son of God and God, He receives the properties of the co-existing nature—that is, of the flesh—so that God is named passible. ^D

and the Lord of glory is said to have been ^A crucified: not insofar as He is God, but insofar as the same person is at once man. In the same way, when He is called man and Son of man, He assumes the properties and ornaments of the divine essence. For He who is older than all time is called a child, and He who is without beginning is called man: not in the way in which He is a child and man, but because, being God and before all ages, He became a child in the last times. And this is the manner of the interchange, with each nature communicating to the other its own properties because of their identity of hypostasis and their mutual indwelling. For this reason we may say of Christ: This is our God, who was seen on the earth and lived among men 57. And, this man is uncreated, and impassible, and uncircumscribed.

CAP. V.

On the number of natures.

The number of Persons in God, and of natures in Christ. Union does not take away number. — But, just as we confess one nature in the Godhead, but say that there are three Persons who truly exist, and we declare all things that are natural and essential to be simple, while we recognize the distinction of the Persons to lie only in the three properties—namely, that one is without cause and is the Father, another is from a cause and is the Son, and another is from a cause and is proceeding—in such a way that they can neither depart from each other nor be separated; but rather, they are ^B united to each other, and permeate one another without confusion: so that, I say, they are united without any confusion, since they are three, even though they are united; but they are also distinct without separation (for although each one of them subsists by itself, or is a perfect hypostasis, and possesses its own property, that is, its own distinct mode of existence; yet they are joined by reason of their essence and natural properties, and by the fact that they do not depart or stray from the Father's hypostasis, and for this reason God is one, and they both are and are called God): in a similar manner, in the divine and hidden economy of the Word of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, which surpasses every sharpness of mind and every grasp, we confess that two natures, namely the divine and the human, have come together and have been united according to hypostasis, and that one hypostasis has been formed from the two natures, which is composite; but we declare that the two natures are preserved even after the union, in the one composite hypostasis, that is, in the one Christ, and that they exist in truth, along with their natural properties; though they are united without confusion, and are distinct without ^C division, and are numbered. And just as the three hypostases of the holy Trinity are united without confusion, and without division 14...

^A, distinguishing and numbering them—for number creates neither division, nor disjunction, nor alienation, nor cutting in them (since we know one God, the Father, and the Son, and the holy Spirit)—just so, the natures of Christ, although they are united to one another, are united without confusion; and even though they ^B permeate one another, they do not admit any conversion or mutation of one into the other. For each preserves its own natural property unchanged. Wherefore they are numbered, and the number does not introduce division. For Christ is one, perfect both in divinity and in humanity; for number is not the cause of division or union, but is indicative of the quantity of the things being numbered, whether they are united or divided. They are united, for instance, as when we say that this wall consists of fifty stones; they are divided, as when we say that fifty stones are lying in this field. Again, they are united, as when we say that there are two natures in charcoal, namely fire and wood; and they are divided, in that the nature of the fire is one, and that of the wood is another—in another manner indeed, it joins and divides them, but not by number. Just as, therefore, it is impossible to call the three hypostases of the divinity, even if they are united with one another, one hypostasis, lest we work a confusion and an obliteration of the difference of the hypostases, so it is impossible to call the two natures of Christ, which are united according to hypostasis, one nature, so that we do not effect both their confusion and the non-existence of their difference. ^C

CAP. VI. That the whole divine nature is united to the whole human nature in one of its hypostases, and not part to part.

Common and universal qualities are predicated of the particulars subject to them. Therefore, the essence is common, as a species; the hypostasis, however, is particular. It is particular not in the sense that it possesses a part of the nature and another part does not, but because it is particular in number, as an individual; for hypostases are said to differ by number and not by nature. The essence is predicated of the hypostasis, because the essence is perfect in each of the hypostases of the same kind. Therefore, the hypostases do not differ from one another by essence, but by the accidents, which are the characteristic properties ^D by which the hypostasis, not the nature, is marked. For the hypostasis is essence with accidents. Hence, the hypostasis possesses both the common element along with the specific one.

[Notes omitted]

and furthermore, it exists in itself. For essence does not exist by itself, but is contemplated in the hypostases. If, therefore, one of the hypostases suffers, the entire essence, being passible in that respect in which the hypostasis has suffered, is said to have suffered in one of its hypostases; yet there is no necessity that all the hypostases of the same species should suffer along with the hypostasis that suffers.

^B Thus, therefore, we confess the nature of the Godhead to be entirely whole in each of its hypostases: whole in the Father, whole in the Son, and whole in the Holy Spirit. On this account, the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God. In this same way, in the incarnation of the Word of God, one of the Holy Trinity, we say that the whole and perfect nature of the Godhead was united in one of its hypostases to the whole of human nature, and not part to part. The divine Apostle says, therefore, that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

NOTE ON THE SEVERIANS

^A We say that there was a union of the whole with the whole, and not a part with a part. For the divine Apostle says: *In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily* (Col. 2:9)—that is, in his flesh. And his bearer-of-God disciple Dionysius, who is distinguished by his vast knowledge of divine things, says that the whole Godhead had communion with us in one of its persons. ^B Yet we shall not be compelled to say that all the persons of the holy Godhead—that is, the three persons—are united according to hypostasis with all the persons of humanity. For in no way did the Father and the Holy Spirit share in the incarnation of God the Word, except by good pleasure and will. But we say that the whole substance of the Godhead is united to the whole human nature. For God the Word, having fashioned us from the beginning, did not leave out any of those things which he implanted in our nature, but assumed all: body, soul endowed with intellect and reason, and their properties. For the animal which lacks one of these is not a man. For the whole assumed me, the whole has been united to the whole, so that he might bestow salvation upon the whole. For that which is not assumed is not healed.

The Word of God, therefore, is united to the flesh through the medium of the mind, which stands between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh. ^C For the mind is the ruler of both soul and flesh; yet the mind is the purest part of the soul, and God is the mind of the mind. And when the mind [of Christ] is ruled by the One who is greater, it manifests its own leadership as the mind of Christ. Yet it is overcome and follows after the One who is greater, and performs those things which the divine will desires. And the mind has become a place for the Godhead united to it according to hypostasis, just as the flesh has—not as a cohabitant, as the polluted error of the heretics imagines. For they say that one modius cannot hold two modii, judging immaterial things after the manner of bodies. How, then, shall Christ be called perfect God and perfect man, and consubstantial with the Father and with us?

^A If part of the divine nature is united to part of the human nature in Him? We say that our nature has been raised from the dead, and has ascended, and has sat down at the right hand of the Father; not in the sense that all the persons of men have risen and sat down at the right hand of the Father, but in the sense that our whole nature has attained this in the person of Christ. The divine Apostle says therefore: "And raised us up together, and made us sit together in Christ" (Eph. II, 6).

And we also say this, that the union has been brought about from common essences. For every essence is common to the persons contained under it, and it is impossible to find a particular and proper nature, or essence; since otherwise it would be necessary to call the same persons both consubstantial and of different essence, and to call the holy Trinity both consubstantial and of different essence according to the divinity. The same nature is therefore considered in each of the persons. And when ^B we say that the nature of the Word has been incarnate, according to the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we say that the divinity is united to the flesh. For which reason we cannot say: "The nature of the Word has suffered"; for the divinity in Him has not suffered; but we say that the human nature has suffered in Christ, not by this implying all the persons of men, but we confess that Christ has suffered in human nature. So when we say the nature of the Word, we signify the Word Himself. But the Word possesses both the communion of essence and the property of the person.

CAP. VII. Concerning the one composite person of the Word of God.

^C The person of the Word before and after the incarnation. The person of the Word, simple, becomes composite by the incarnation. We say, therefore, that the divine hypostasis of the Word of God exists before all things, outside of all time, and eternally, simple and not composite, uncreated, incorporeal, invisible, untouchable, uncircumscribed, having all things that the Father has, as being consubstantial with Him, and differing from the hypostasis of the Father only by the mode of generation and relation, being perfect, and never severed from the person of the Father; but in the last days, ^D not having departed from the paternal bosom, the Word began to exist in the womb of the holy Virgin, uncircumscribed, without seed, and incomprehensibly, as He Himself knows, and in that very pre-eternal

^A hypostasis subsisted.

In all things, then, and above all things He was, even when He was in the womb of the holy Theotokos; but in her, He was working out the incarnation in a more special way. Therefore, He was incarnate, taking from her the first-fruits of our compound, flesh animated by a soul rational and intelligent, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God might become the hypostasis for the flesh, and the previously simple hypostasis of the Word might become compound; compound, I say, from two perfect natures: divinity and humanity. And it bears the characteristic and distinguishing property of the divine sonship of the Word of God, by which It is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit; and the characteristic and distinguishing properties of the flesh, by which It differs from the Mother and from the rest of men. It also bears the properties of the divine nature, by which It is united to the Father and to the Spirit, and the marks of the human nature, by which It is united both to the Mother and to us. Furthermore, it differs from the Father and the Spirit, and from the Mother and us, in that It is the same being, both God and man. For we recognize this as the most peculiar property of the hypostasis of Christ. ^B

Therefore, we confess Him, one Son of God even after the incarnation, and the same one Son of man, one Christ, one Lord, the only-begotten Son and Word of God alone, Jesus our Lord. We venerate His two births: the one from the Father, before the ages, beyond cause and reason and time and nature; and the other in the last times, for our sake, according to us, and above us. For our sake, that is, for our salvation; according to us, because He became man from a woman, and in the time of gestation; above us, because it was not of seed, but of the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, beyond the law of gestation; nor do we call Him God alone, nor man alone, but both together. ^C

Christ’s generation from the Mother is for us and above us.

Wherefore, even after the assumption of humanity, we confess the same one Son of God, and the same Son of man, one Christ, one Lord, one only-begotten Son, and Word of God, Jesus our Lord, venerating His twofold generation: the one from the Father before the ages, more sublime than every cause, and time, and nature; the other in the final times, for our sake, after our manner, and above us; for our sake, I say, that He might bring us salvation: after our manner, because He was born of a woman, and at the customary time of birth: and finally, above us, because He was not ^D born of seed, but by the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin Mary, beyond the law of gestation.

^A Not that we preach Him as a God stripped of our humanity, or again as only a man, stripped of divinity, or finally as one and another; but as one and the same God and man, perfect God and perfect man: whole God and whole man—whole God, together with His flesh, and whole man, also with the accompaniment of His most high divinity. For when we say perfect God and perfect man, we are declaring the plenitude of the natures, so that nothing is wanting in them; but when we say whole God and whole man, we are showing the indivisible singularity of the person.

Una Dei Verbi natura et incarnata. — We confess, moreover, one incarnate nature of God the Word; for by saying "incarnate," we signify the substance of the flesh, according to the blessed Cyril. And so the Word is incarnate, yet He has not departed from His own incorporeal nature; and He is wholly incarnate, ^B and remains wholly uncircumscribed. He is reduced and contracted bodily, but divinely He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being extended along with His uncircumscribed divinity. Nor does His flesh, together with the divinity which cannot be circumscribed, extend itself as God.

For He is wholly perfect God, but not "all" God (for He is not only God, but also man), and likewise He is wholly perfect man, but not "all" man (for He is not only man, but also God). For "whole" (Tὸ μὲν ὅλον) is demonstrative of nature, but "wholly" (τὸ δὲ ὅλος) of the person; just as "another" (ἄλλο) indicates nature, and "another" (ἄλλος) indicates the person.

Naturarum in eo commeatio ex divinitate. — We must also know that although we say the natures of our Lord permeate one another, yet we know that this permeation comes from the divine nature; for it penetrates all things as it wills, and nothing penetrates it. And it imparts its own gifts to the flesh, while remaining itself impassible and without part in the affections of the flesh. For if the sun, while providing us with a participation in its own energies, remains without part in our own, how much more does the Maker and Lord of the sun!

CHAPTER VIII.

CONCERNING THE NATURES OF THE LORD, WHETHER THEY BE REDUCED TO CONTINUOUS OR DISCRETE QUANTITY

If it should be questioned whether the Lord’s natures ^A are to be reduced to continuous or discrete quantity, we shall answer that the natures of the Lord are neither one body, nor one surface, nor one line, nor time, nor place, so as to be reduced to continuous quantity; for these are the things that are reckoned as continuous quantities. But it must be known that number belongs to things that differ, and it is impossible for things that do not differ at all to be numbered; but insofar as they differ, in that respect they are also numbered. For instance, Peter and Paul: insofar as they are united, they are not numbered. For by the account of their essence, being united, they cannot be called two natures; but insofar as they differ by hypostasis, they are called two hypostases. So that number is of those things that differ, and according to the mode by which things that differ do differ, in that same mode they are also numbered.

The natures of the Lord, then, are united unconfusedly according to hypostasis, but they are divided without division by the account and mode of their difference. And in the mode in which they are united, they are not numbered; for we do not say that there are two natures of Christ according to hypostasis; but in the mode in which they are divided without division, they are numbered; for there are two natures of Christ, by the account and mode of their difference. For having been united according to hypostasis, and having a mutual interpenetration, they are united unconfusedly, each preserving its own natural difference. Therefore, by the mode of their difference, and by that alone being numbered, they will be reduced to discrete quantity.

HOW THE FLESH OF CHRIST IS ADORED

Therefore, one is Christ, perfect God and perfect man, whom we adore with the Father and the Spirit with one adoration including his immaculate flesh, not calling the flesh unadorable; for it is adored in the one hypostasis of the Word, which has become its own hypostasis; we do not worship the creature. For we do not adore it as mere flesh, but as united to the divinity, and as the two natures of God the Word are reduced to one ^C person and one hypostasis. I fear to touch the coal because of the fire joined to the wood. I adore both, the humanity and the divinity of Christ, because of the divinity united to the flesh. For there is not a fourth person in the Trinity; God forbid! Rather, I confess one person of God the Word...

and of his flesh. For the Trinity remained the Trinity even after the incarnation of the Word. ^A

To those who ask whether the two natures are to be referred to the category of continuous quantity or to that of discrete quantity: The natures of the Lord are neither one body, nor one surface, nor a line, nor place, nor time, so that they might be reduced to continuous quantity; for these are the things which are continuously counted. But the natures of the Lord are united without confusion according to hypostasis, and they are divided without separation, by the reasoning and mode of discrimination of each. And in the respect in which they are united, they are not counted. For we do not say that the natures of Christ are two persons, or two according to hypostasis; but in the respect in which they are divided without separation, they are counted. For there are two natures, by the reasoning and mode of difference. For, being united according to hypostasis and interpenetrating one another, they are united without confusion, not receiving change into one another, each preserving its own natural difference even after the union. For what is created remained created, and what is uncreated, uncreated. Therefore, by the mode of difference, and by that alone, since they are counted, they will be brought under the category of discrete quantity. For it is impossible for things that differ in no way to be counted; but in that they differ, they are counted. For example, Peter and Paul: in so far as they are united, they do not admit of number; for being united by the reasoning of essence, they are neither two natures nor called such; but differing according to hypostasis, they are called two hypostases. So that difference is the cause of number. ^B

CAP. IX.

Although there is no nature which ^D lacks subsistence, just as Leontius bears witness (act. *De sect.*), he constructs his objection in this way: "If you speak of two natures, either they have subsistence or they lack it. If they have subsistence, you introduce two persons, two Christs, two sons. But if they lack subsistence, they no longer exist in the nature of things." Leontius, however, says: "Unless Christ consists of two natures, as you say, either they have subsistence or they lack it. If they have subsistence, then there are two persons; if they lack it, they no longer exist." Wherefore in the *Defensions* he shows that the Severians fight on behalf of the Nestorians: "I heard," he says, "someone who thought he was arguing keenly, that there is no nature that is impersonal, but that a person accompanies a nature. If therefore there are two natures, by all means there are also two persons. How would one not pity those who propose such things? They clearly stumble in this way, and while pretending to fight against Nestorius, they [oppose] his..."

own arguments and in themselves strengthen his malady. In like manner, Leontius (lib. 1, *Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos*) considers the authors of this argument to be both Eutychians and Nestorians, and replies, as in the book *De Sectis*, that one thing is substance and another thing is that which is subsistent; furthermore, that Christ is one person and hypostasis, but that there are two natures subsisting in one and the same person. See what I have said on this in the *Dialectics*. Eulogius proceeds in the same sense: "And if indeed they say that it is impossible for natures to be known except in persons, this, indeed, anyone who has even a little experience will concede to them. For who is ignorant that what is universal is seen in individual persons, as in hypostases that seal it; for example, the nature of divinity is seen in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit; likewise the angelic nature is in Michael, in Gabriel, and in the rest.... But if they contend that each nature must be accompanied by its own proper person, this I would indeed judge to be true regarding natures, or substances, which are not united according to hypostasis: but it is far from the truth if the discourse concerns natures which are coupled through composition and hypostatically."

The substance is not without a person. For both substance and nature are seen in hypostases and persons. But it is not necessary that the natures that are united to one another according to hypostasis should each possess its own individual hypostasis. For they are able, having converged into one hypostasis, neither to be unsubstantiated, nor to possess an individual hypostasis for each, but rather [to possess] one and the same [hypostasis] for both. For the same hypostasis of the Word, having become the hypostasis of both natures, does not permit them to be one without an hypostasis, nor does it allow them to be separate hypostases from one another; nor does it allow the hypostasis to be [here and there], now of this, now of that, but always ^B to exist as the hypostasis of both indivisibly and inseparably; not being divided and parted, and distributing a part of itself to this and a part to that, but being whole in the one and whole in the other, existing indivisibly and completely. For the flesh of God the Word did not subsist independently, nor did it become a different hypostasis other than the hypostasis of God the Word, but subsisting in it, it is rather *enhypostatos*, and did not become an independently existing hypostasis by itself. Wherefore it is neither without an hypostasis, nor does it introduce another hypostasis into the Trinity.

CHAPTER X. On the Trisagion hymn.

Divine names are common. Since these things are so, [(24)] from this also the addition in the Trisagion ^C is said [to have originated]. For it is said that Peter the Fuller, having occupied the see of Antioch, under the pretext of eliminating the Nestorian error, added this most celebrated hymn in this way: "Holy God, holy mighty, holy immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us." This interpolation the Jacobite Syrians and the Armenians admitted; because of this, because they seemed to attribute suffering to the divinity of Christ, they were also called Theopaschites. Furthermore, because it was the common sense of the faithful that by such Trisagia the individual persons of the Trinity were invoked, many supposed that by the Fuller the Trinity itself was proclaimed as being fixed to the cross, or some other person ^D other than the Son who had been crucified, as our author explains. There are letters attributed to Felix III, pope, and Acacius of Constantinople, and others, among Zonaras, by which Peter the Fuller is held guilty of multiple heresy on account of this mutation. But the most learned Valesius deems these to be adulterated; on the contrary, William Cave proves them to be sincere in his *Historia Litteraria* under the entry for Felix; and indeed even the illustrious Francis Pagi, in the year 483. Our author wrote more concerning the Trisagion hymn in his epistle to Jordan. Moreover, Ephraem--

the Antiochian in Photius, codex 226, relates that this is entirely referred by the Orientals to the Son; that is, by the churches subject to the Antiochene prelate. Indeed, not long ago Calendio, who had replaced Fullo, in order that that addition might be interpreted in a good sense, wove in these other words: *Christe Rex, qui crucifixus*, etc. Guido Fabricius Boderianus of Antwerp published in Syriac and Latin certain things pertaining to the rites of Baptism and the holy synaxis, as if they were by Severus, patriarch of Alexandria, when yet in the text the name of the Alexandrian is not read in the Syriac. It is not doubtful but that this Severus is the Antiochene, the prince of the Severians. For indeed, at the end of the Trisagion hymn, the addition is thus had: *Glorification of the angels, when our Lord was being crucified: HOLY GOD, HOLY MIGHTY, HOLY IMMORTAL.* Joseph and Nicodemus said: *WHO WAST CRUCIFIED FOR US, HAVE MERCY ON US.* Whence you may gather that this liturgy was of the Jacobites or Severians, not of the Catholics.

^A That appendix which Peter Gnapheus, or Fullo, added to the Trisagion hymn, we determine to be impious, as it introduces a fourth person, and places the Son of God, that is to say, the consubstantial power of the Father, apart; and places him who was affixed to the cross apart, as if he were another distinct from that mighty one, or deems the holy Trinity to be subject to passion, and brings both the Father and the Holy Spirit onto the cross. Far be this blasphemous and adulterated nonsense! For we accept the *Holy God* as applied to the Father: not that we assign the name of divinity to him alone; for we acknowledge also the Son and the Holy Spirit as God. Likewise, we apply the *Holy Mighty* to the Son: not that we strip the Father and the Holy Spirit of power. And finally, we ascribe the *Holy Immortal* to the Holy Spirit: not that we exclude the Father and the Son from immortality, but that in each person we take all the divine names simply and absolutely, imitating the divine Apostle, whose words are these: *To us however there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we of him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, and we in him.* Item, likewise the Theologian Gregory, speaking in this manner: *To us however there is one God the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.* These little words, *of whom, by whom, and in whom*, do not divide the natures (for otherwise those prepositions, or the order of the names, would never be changed), but express the properties of one and the unconfused nature. And this is clear from the fact that they are gathered again into one, if only anyone reads that passage in the same Apostle not carelessly: *Of him, and by him, and in him are all things; to him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.*

Namely, that the thrice-holy hymn is said not merely of the Son, but of the holy Trinity, the divine and holy Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory witness, and the whole choir of God-bearing Fathers; since through the threefold holiness, they indicate the three [hypostases] of the super-essential Godhead, the holy Seraphim to us. But through the single lordship,

they declare the one substance and kingdom of the divine Trinity. For Gregory the Theologian says: “Thus then the Holy of Holies, which is even covered by the Seraphim, and glorified by three sanctifications, comes together into one lordship and divinity.” This is what another of those before us has philosophized most beautifully and sublimely.

Now, those who have compiled the ecclesiastical history say ^B that when the people in Constantinople were supplicating because of a certain divinely sent threat 25 that occurred under Archbishop Proclus, it happened that a boy from the people was caught up on high, and that he learned from angelic teaching this Trisagion hymn: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” And once the boy was returned and had reported what he had learned, the whole multitude sang the hymn, and thus the threat subsided. And it is even handed down that in the holy and great and ecumenical fourth synod, I mean the one at Chalcedon, this Trisagion hymn was sung in this way; for so it is recorded in the acts of that same holy synod. Therefore, it would be utterly ridiculous and laughable ^C for that Trisagion song, which was received from the angels and strengthened by the averting of impending evils, which a packed synod of holy Fathers approved, and which the Seraphim had sung long before as expressive of the tri-hypostatic Godhead, to be trampled underfoot by the foolish opinion of the fuller, as though he surpassed the Seraphim, or at least corrected them. But oh, the arrogance—not to say the madness! We, however, even if the demons should burst, say thus: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.”

CAP. XI.

Nature is understood in simple consideration; according to...

^A itself it does not subsist. The nature that is commonly joined in all similar-species hypostases is that which is said to be contemplated in the species. The nature that is wholly the same in the reception of accidents, in one hypostasis, is also said to be contemplated in the individual; it is the same as that which is contemplated in the species. Therefore, God the Word, becoming incarnate, did not assume the nature that is grasped merely in simple contemplation (for this is not an incarnation, but an imposture and a phantom of incarnation), nor did He assume that which is contemplated in the species (for He did not assume all the hypostases), but rather that which is in the individual, which is the same as that which is in the species. For He assumed the first fruits of our human dough, not having subsisted by itself and having existed as an individual beforehand, and thus being assumed by Him, but rather having existence in His own hypostasis.

^B For this hypostasis of God the Word became a hypostasis for the flesh, and according to this, the Word became flesh, in an unchanging manner, to be sure; and the flesh became the Word, without alteration; and God, human. For God is the Word, and the human is God, because of the hypostatic union. Therefore it is the same thing to speak of the nature of the Word, and of the nature in the individual. For it does not declare the individual, that is, the hypostasis, strictly and solely, nor [merely] the commonality of the hypostases, but rather the common nature contemplated and examined in one of the hypostases.

On how union and incarnation differ. The one nature of the Word incarnate as explained by Cyril himself.

Now, union is one thing, and incarnation is another. For union indicates only the conjunction; but with what that conjunction has taken place, it does not specify. But incarnation (which is the same as saying “humanation”) shows the conjunction with flesh, that is, with a human being; just as the ignition of iron shows the union with fire. ^C Indeed, the blessed Cyril himself, in his second epistle to Sucensus, interpreting the phrase, “one nature of God the Word incarnate,” speaks as follows: “If, having spoken of one nature of the Word, we have kept silent, not adding ‘incarnate,’ but as if from outside...”

Note

...that we believe there is one nature, because it is of the one, although it became flesh and was incarnate. The Catholics generally understand this in such a way that he accepted "nature" for "person" or "hypostasis," in that he denies that the hypostases in Christ are disjoined, and asserts that the conjunction of the hypostases, that is, of the natures, has taken place; and again, in *Defense of the Anathematisms* 2, against Theodoret, he uses these words: “The nature or hypostasis of the Word, which is the Word Himself.” Thus, Eulogius interprets his predecessor in Photius, *Codex* 250; ^D Ephraemius also, *ibid.*; Justinian in his *Profession of Faith*, to which Leontius supports in his *Solutions of the Arguments of Severus*. But in *De Sectis*, in the same manner as the Damascene replies, [he suggests] that Cyril accepted the term not for the nature which is common, but as it exists in a hypostasis. What we have said concerning the sense of Cyril should be read at Chapter 50 of the Dialectics. That passage of Cyril which our author brings forward after Leontius, from his 2nd Epistle to Sucensus, establishes both natures, entire and perfect; and having exploded the blasphemy of Nestorius, he praises the faith of the Orientals, who, regarding those things by which Christ is understood by simple and pure contemplation alone, declared the difference of the natures, because, as I was saying, divinity and humanity are not the same regarding natural quality; but nevertheless, they acknowledge one Son, and Christ, and Lord, etc. Many passages of Cyril conspire to the same end, so that the Chalcedonian formula consists almost entirely of his own sentiments. Athanasius, in the book *On the Salutary Advent of Christ*, uses the name in the same sense in which Cyril had, by saying that the whole nature of the Word was present to exhibit the human form, the visible Adam, not by a division of persons, but by the existence of divinity and humanity.

^A For if, when we had spoken of the nature of the Word, we had held our peace, and had not added "incarnate," but had, as it were, excluded the dispensation, their argument might perhaps have had some plausibility, when they dissemblingly asked: "If one nature is the whole, where is that perfection in humanity, or in what way does our equal essence consist?" But since both the perfection in humanity and the declaration of our essence have been brought in by the saying "incarnate," let them cease to lean upon a reed of a staff. Here, indeed, he set the nature of the Word over the nature. For if he had taken "nature" instead of "hypostasis," it would not have been absurd to say this even without "incarnate"; for in saying absolutely one hypostasis of God the Word, we do not err. In like manner also Leontius the Byzantine understood the expression as referring to nature, not to hypostasis. But the blessed Cyril, in the ^B Apology which he wrote against the censures of Theodoret regarding the second anathema, speaks thus: "The nature of the Word, that is, the hypostasis, which is the Word himself." So that to say "the nature of the Word" signifies neither the hypostasis alone, nor the commonness of the hypostases, but the common nature considered in the hypostasis of the Word as a whole.

That the nature of the Word was incarnate, that is, united to flesh, has been said; but that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh, we have not yet heard even to this day, but we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh. So that the phrase "nature of the Word" does not denote the hypostasis. It remains, therefore, to say that to be incarnate is to be united to flesh, but for the Word to become flesh is for the very hypostasis of the Word to become, without change, the hypostasis of the flesh. And that God has become man, and man God, has been said. For God, being the Word, has become man without change. But that the divinity has become man, or has been incarnate, or has humanized, we have never heard. But that the divinity was united to humanity in one of its hypostases, we have learned; and that God is formed, that is, is ^C substantiated, regarding the alien, that is, what is of our nature, has been said.

Proposition regarding the matter at hand.

^A For with respect to each of the hypostases, the name of God is applied, but we cannot say "divinity" with respect to a hypostasis. For we have never heard that the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is the divinity; for divinity denotes the nature, while "Father" denotes the hypostasis, just as "humanity" denotes the nature, and "Peter" the hypostasis. But "God" signifies also the community of the nature, and is applied to each of the hypostases synonymously, just as "man"; for he is God who has the divine nature, and he is man who has the human nature. For the name of God is applied to each of the hypostases. ^B Above all these things, it must be known that the Father and the Holy Spirit have no part in the incarnation of the Word, except in terms of approval and will.

CAP. XII. That the holy Virgin is the Mother of God, against the Nestorians.

We proclaim the holy Virgin to be properly and truly the Mother of God. For as the God who was born of her is true God, truly the Mother of God is she who gave birth to the true God, born of her incarnate. For we say that God was born of her, not as if the divinity of the Word had received from her the beginning of its existence, but as if the Word of God Himself, who before all ages was born of the Father ^C without time, and exists without beginning and eternally with the Father and the Spirit, in the last days for the sake of our salvation, dwelt in her womb and was born of her, being incarnate without change. For the holy Virgin did not give birth to a mere man, but to true God; not bare, but clothed with flesh; nor did He bring His body from heaven and pass through her as through a pipe, but He took from her flesh of the same substance as ours, and established it in Himself. For if the body was brought from heaven and was not taken from our nature, what need was there for the incarnation? For the incarnation of the Word of God took place for the very purpose that the very nature which had sinned, and fallen, and become corrupt, ^D might overcome the tyrant who had deceived it

and thus be set free from corruption, as the divine Apostle says: For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead ^A. If the former is true, then the latter is surely true as well.

And if he says: The first Adam [(29)] is of the earth, earthy; the second Adam, the Lord, is from heaven [I Cor. xv, 47], he does not imply that His body was brought down from heaven, but he shows that He is not merely a man. For behold, he called Him both Adam and Lord, indicating both together. For Adam is interpreted as "earth-born," and it is clear that the nature of man, which was fashioned from the earth, is earth-born; while "Lord" is descriptive of the divine essence.

Again, the Apostle says: God sent forth His Son, the Only-begotten, ^B made of a woman [Gal. iv, 4]. He did not say "through a woman," but "of a woman." Thus the divine Apostle signified that He Himself is the Only-begotten Son of God and God, who became man of the Virgin, and that He Himself who was born of the Virgin is the Son of God and God; but born bodily, in the way He became man, not by inhabiting a man already fashioned, as in a prophet, but by Himself substantially and truly becoming man—that is, in His own hypostasis securing flesh animated by a rational and intelligent soul, and Himself becoming its hypostasis. For this is what "made of a woman" signifies. For how else could the Word of God Himself have been made under the law, ^C unless He had become man consubstantial with us?

Wherefore we justly and truly call the holy Mary Theotokos; for this name sums up the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she who gave birth is Theotokos, the One born of her is absolutely God, and absolutely man. For how could a God who has His existence before the ages be born of a woman, unless He became man? For clearly "Son of man" means man. But if He who was born of a woman is God, it is clearly one and the same who was begotten of God the Father according to the divine and beginningless essence, and in the last days was born of the Virgin according to the essence that had a beginning and is subject to time—that is, the human essence. This signifies one hypostasis and truly one person.

^A The Fathers refused to call the holy Virgin "Christipara" (Christ-bearer). The term "Christotokos" is the voice of Nestorius, that "Christ" might be spoken of as those who think rightly speak of the "incarnate God." For the human nature was united to the Word at the very moment of conception. But we by no means name the holy Virgin "Christipara," because that impure and execrable man, Nestorius—that man with a Jewish mind, that vessel of ignominy—invented this title to abolish the word "Theotokos" (Mother of God), in contempt of her who alone is truly to be honored above every creature; and may he be torn apart—he and his father Satan—for inventing this name to foist upon us. For indeed King David is also called a Christ, and Aaron the high priest, since kings and priests were accustomed to be anointed; indeed, any pious man to whom God has breathed can be called a Christ, but not by nature God. Yet that pernicious Nestorius raved to call Him who was born of the Virgin a "Deifer" (God-bearer). But far be it from us to call or think of Him as a "Deifer" breathed upon by God; ^B rather, we confess Him to be God incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, having been conceived from the Virgin, but proceeding forth as God together with the taking up of the nature, which was already deified by Him at the very moment it was brought into existence. Thus the three things occurred simultaneously: the taking up, the existence, and the deification of that nature by the Word. And thus the holy Virgin is understood and called Theotokos, not only on account of the nature of the Word, but also on account of the deification of the human nature—of which both the conception and the existence were wrought by miracle. For the conception was of the Word, while the existence of the flesh was in the Word Himself; the Mother of God herself supernaturally providing for the molding by the Creator, and for the becoming-human of God, the Maker of all, who deifies the nature He assumed. The union preserves the united elements as they were when they were united; I mean not only the divine, but also the human of Christ, both that which is above us and that which is according to us. For it did not happen that what was first according to us later became above us; but from the first moment of existence, both have always existed in Him, because from the very beginning of the conception, it had its existence in the Word Himself. Human, therefore, it is according to its own nature, but divine and of God, supernaturally. ^C Furthermore, He also assumed the properties of the ensouled flesh. For the Word accepted them, by way of the dispensation, for they truly came to be according to the order of natural movement.

CAP. XIII. On the properties of both natures

CAP. XIV. On the twofold will and free choice of our Lord Jesus Christ

manifests the difference of the natures, thus also the number of the wills and operations essentially pertaining to his natures—for he was volitional and operative of our salvation according to both natures—does not introduce a division; heaven forbid; but it declares their preservation and immunity from corruption even in the union. For we say that the wills and operations are natural, and not hypostatic. By this I mean the volitional and operative power itself, according to which he wills and operates those things that are willed and operated. For if we grant that they are hypostatic, we shall be forced to declare the three persons of the holy Trinity as having different wills and different operations.

^B It is to be known, however, that to will, and to will in a certain way, are not the same thing. For the "to will" belongs to nature, just as "to see" does; for this pertains to all men. But the "how one wills" does not belong to nature, but to our own judgment; just as "how one sees," whether well or badly, also depends on this. For not all men will in the same way, nor do they see in the same way. We shall grant this also concerning operations. For the "how one wills," "how one sees," or "how one operates" is a mode of the use of willing, seeing, and operating, which belongs only to the one using it, and separates him from others according to the commonly spoken difference.

Therefore, "to will" simply is called will, that is, the volitional power, which is a rational appetition and a natural will; but to will in a certain way, that is, the object subject to the will, is the "willed," and the "will of judgment" (or gnomic will). And the "volitional" is that which has by nature the power to will: for instance, the divine nature is volitional, and likewise the human. And the "willer" is he who uses the will, that is, the person, such as Peter.

^C Since, therefore, Christ is one, and his person is one, he is the same one who wills both divinely and humanly. And since he has two natures that are volitional, as being rational—for everything rational is also volitional and possessed of self-determination—we shall say there are two volitions, that is, natural wills, in him. For he is the same one who is volitional according to both his natures. For he assumed the volitional power naturally inherent in us. And since Christ is one and the same who wills according to each nature, we shall also speak of the one "willed" in him, not as if he alone were willing what he naturally willed as God—for it is not of the divinity to will to eat and drink and such things—but also those things that are constitutive of the human nature.

^A This, however, was not due to a conflict of opinion, but to the particular nature of the essences. For then he naturally willed these things, because his divine will willed them, and permitted the flesh to suffer and do things proper to itself.

That the will belongs naturally to man is clear from the following. Excluding the divine, there are three kinds of life: the vegetative, the sensitive, and the rational. The vegetative has as its own the nutritive, the augmentative, and the generative movement; the sensitive has movement according to impulse; the rational and intellectual has the movement of free will. If, therefore, the nutritive movement belongs by nature to the vegetative, and the movement according to impulse belongs to the sensitive, then by nature the free movement belongs to the rational and intellectual. ^B And free will is nothing else than the capacity of willing. Since, therefore, the Word became flesh, animated, and endowed with intellect and free will, he also became possessed of a will.

Furthermore, natural things are not learned; for no one learns to reason, to live, to hunger, to thirst, or to sleep. Nor do we learn to will; therefore, willing is natural.

Again, if in irrational creatures nature leads, while in man—who moves with authority according to his will—it is he who leads, then man is by nature a creature that wills.

Again, if man is made in the image of the blessed and superessential divinity, and the divine nature is by nature free and possessed of the will, then man also, as its image, is by nature free and possessed of the will. ^C For the Fathers defined free will as the capacity of willing.

NOTE.

...the same opinion that the natures agreed; for otherwise two persons would already exist, because of the diversity of opinions. Wherefore in his *Epistle on the Two Wills*, [it is observed that] the Monothelites fell into error because, just as Nestorius and Eutyches had not distinguished nature from person, they also did not separate the arbitrary will (which he also calls ^D gnomic) from the natural [will]. And since this one arbitrary will is nothing else but the mutual harmony of wills, divine and human, it follows that it is not exercised in one and the same act, but in two, of which one belongs to the divine, the commander and ruler, and the other to the human, freely obeying. Moreover, this "one will by choice" is properly the same as "one,"—a single thing that both wills desire, or, as our people say, "a single thing willed." Thus Maximus, in the cited dialogue, interprets the similar saying of the Fathers, that there is one will of God and the saints. As our author says below: "Since Christ is one and the same who wills in each nature, we shall state that the object of his will is likewise one."

Photius, in his treatise *On the Arbitrary Wills in Christ*, while trying to explain the sense of Maximus, increases the difficulty; as if the holy confessor had conceded to Christ only a natural will, such as [the will] of eating, drinking, or avoiding death, and not of this or that specific [act of] eating, drinking, speaking, etc. Nor does Gretserus ill-refute him, in Stewart's *Collectanea*. Turrianus brings forth this anonymous scholium, by which Photius is shown not to be consistent with himself: "In what way is it said here that there is one arbitrary will in Christ, when he who introduces this opinion frequently falls into crime (namely, the Monothelite heresy)?" Indeed, Maximus and the Damascene proposed this passage to these heretics, Marc. vii: "Jesus arose and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon; and he entered into a house, and would have no man know it, and he could not be hid." From which they inferred that Christ at times wished certain things by human will, which the divine will would not grant him to do. Wherefore Maximus, in his book *On the Two Wills*, p. 103, concedes to Christ two arbitrary wills, if they are considered essentially diverse, but by no means if they are contrary and opposed.

^A Furthermore, if the capacity to will belongs to all men, and not to some it belongs and to others it does not; and if that which is commonly observed in all identifies the nature in the individuals subject to it, then man is by nature a willing being. And again, if nature does not admit of "more" or "less," and the capacity to will belongs equally to all, and not more abundantly to some and more sparingly to others, then man is by nature a willing being. Consequently, if man is by nature a willing being, then the Lord also, not only as He is God, but also as He became man, is by nature a willing being. For just as He assumed our nature, so also He assumed our will as part of the order of nature. For this reason the Fathers say that He expressed our will in Himself.

If the will were not natural, it would surely be either personal or contrary to nature. If it were personal, then the will of the Son would in this respect differ from the Father's, and would be distinct from it; for what is personal has the power only to express the person. But if it is contrary to nature, then the will would be a defect from nature; for things that are opposed to nature destroy the things that are in accordance with nature.

^B The God and Father of all things wills either insofar as He is Father, or insofar as He is God. If insofar as He is Father, His will will be one thing and the Son's another; for the Father is not the Son. But if insofar as He is God, then since the Son is also God, and the Holy Spirit is God, it must be admitted that the will belongs to the nature, or is natural.

Inasmuch as, if, as the Fathers have held, those whose will is one have also one essence, then if the will of the divinity of Christ and of His humanity were one, their substance must also be one and the same.

And again, if, according to the opinion of the Fathers, the distinction of nature does not appear in a single will, it is necessary that either by affirming one will we do not speak of a natural distinction, or by proclaiming a distinction of natures we do not posit one will.

^C And again, if, as the divine Gospel says, when the Lord came into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into a house, He wished that no one would know, yet He could not remain hidden, then surely, since His divine will can do all things, and yet having willed to remain hidden He could not, it follows that insofar as He was man He willed this and could not, and therefore that He had the capacity to will ^D insofar as He was man.

And again: "When he had come," it says, "to the place, he said: I thirst. And they gave him wine mixed with gall: and when he had tasted, he would not drink." Now if, insofar as He is God...

He thirsted and after tasting would not drink, then even insofar as He is God He was subject to passions; for thirst and tasting are passions. But if He did not thirst insofar as He is God, then He thirsted entirely insofar as He is man, and insofar as He was man He possessed a will.

^B And the blessed apostle Paul also says: "He became," he says, "obedient unto death, even death upon a cross." Obedience is the subjection of that which truly has a will, or rather, of that which does not; for we shall not call a brute animal obedient or disobedient. But the Lord became obedient to the Father, not insofar as He is God, but insofar as He is man. For insofar as He is God, He is neither obedient nor disobedient; for these things belong to those under authority, as the divinely inspired Gregory said. Therefore, Christ possessed a will also insofar as He is man.

^B When we say that the will is natural, we do not mean that it is forced, but that it is self-determining; for if it is rational, it is absolutely also self-determining. For not only does the divine and uncreated nature possess nothing forced, but neither does the intellectual and created nature. And this is clear: for since God is by nature good, and by nature Creator, and by nature God, these things are not of necessity; for who is it that imposes necessity upon Him?

^C But one must know that "self-determination" is used equivocally; it is spoken of in one way concerning God, in another concerning angels, and in another concerning men. In God, it is understood in a super-essential way. In angels, it is understood as occurring concurrently with the habit of deliberation, admitting no interval of time whatsoever; for since the angel has self-determination by nature, he uses it freely and without any impediment, as one who experiences no conflict from a body, nor has any opponent to assail him. But in men, it is understood in such a way that the habit is thought of as prior in time to the action. For although man is self-determining and possesses self-determination by nature, he has also the suggestion of the devil and the movement of the body; therefore, on account of the suggestion and the weight of the body, the action is subsequent to the habit.

^D If, therefore, Adam obeyed by willing, and ate by willing, then the capacity for willing is the primary subject of the passion in us; but if the capacity for willing is the primary subject, and the Word, having become incarnate, did not assume this along with the nature, then we have not become free from sin. Furthermore, if He himself established the freedom of the nature,

^A or if he has condemned his own creation as not being good, or has grudged us the healing associated with it, then he has deprived us of entire healing, while showing himself to be subject to passion, by not willing, or by not being able, to save perfectly.

That it is impossible for one composite to be formed from divine and human wills

Furthermore, it is not right to say that anything is formed as one from two wills, just as we speak of a composite person from two natures. First, because compositions pertain to those things that exist in subsistence, and not those which are considered in another way and not as proper to them. Second, because if we were to speak of a composition of wills and energies, we would be forced to speak of a composition of other natural properties as well—that is, of the uncreated and the created, of the invisible and the visible, and things of that sort. And how, furthermore, will a will composed from two wills be named a "will"? For it is impossible for a composite to be named by the appellations of the things from which it is composed. Otherwise, we would also call that which is composed of natures a "nature," not a "person." Added to this is the fact that if we were to speak of one composite will in Christ, we would distinguish Him from the Father by [his] will; for the Father's will is not composite. It remains, therefore, to say that only the person of Christ is composite and common, just as it is in the case of the natures, so also in the case of His natural properties.

That sententia and election are not properly in Christ

^C But it is impossible to speak of *sententia* and election in the Lord, if we wish to speak exactly. For *sententia* is a disposition toward what has been judged, following upon the investigation and deliberation—that is, the counsel and judgment—regarding an unknown matter. After this comes election, which selects and embraces one thing over another. But the Lord, not being a mere man but also God, and having knowledge of all things, lacked any need for reflection, and investigation, and counsel, and judgment; for this reason, He was naturally constituted to adhere to the good, and, conversely, to turn away from the evil. ^D For thus also the prophet Isaiah says: *Before the child chooses evil, he will choose the good; because before the child knows good or evil, he rejects wickedness in order to choose the good.* For the word "before" shows that he did not inquire and deliberate according to us, but being God, and having become incarnate in a divine manner,

that is, hypostatically united to the flesh, in His very being, and knowing all things, He had goodness by nature; for the virtues are natural ^A and exist naturally and equally in all, even if we do not all equally put the things of nature into operation. For it is from what is according to nature that we have lapsed into what is against nature through transgression. But the Lord has brought us back from what is against nature to what is according to nature; for this is what is "according to the image and likeness." And the ascetic life and its labors were not devised with the thought ^B of acquiring virtue as something imported from outside, but to cast off the evil that has been imported and is against nature; just as when we remove by toil the rust of iron—which is not natural, but arises from neglect—we reveal the natural brightness of the iron.

It should be known, moreover, that the term *gnome* (opinion or intent) is of many turns and many meanings. For sometimes it signifies an exhortation, as the divine Apostle says: "Now concerning the virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my *gnome*" (1 Cor. vii, 25). Sometimes it signifies a plan, as when the prophet David says: "They have taken crafty ^C *gnome* against Your people" (Ps. lxxxii, 4). Sometimes it signifies a decree, as in Daniel: "For what reason did this impudent *gnome* go forth?" (Dan. ii, 15). Sometimes it is used for faith, or opinion, or frame of mind, and, to speak simply, the term *gnome* is taken in twenty-eight meanings.

CAP. XV. Concerning the operations in our Lord Jesus Christ.

We say that there are also two operations (35) in our Lord Jesus Christ. For, even as to His nature,

^A He is God and consubstantial with the Father, He possesses likewise the divine operation; and as He became man and is consubstantial with us, He possesses the operation of the human nature.

It must be understood that operation (act) is one thing, that which is active (opificious) is another, the product of the operation (effect) is another, and finally the one who operates is another. For operation is the effective and essential movement of nature; that which is active is the nature from which the operation proceeds; the product of the operation is that which is brought about by the operation; and the one who operates is he who uses the operation, that is, the person. Sometimes the operation itself is called the product, and conversely the product is called the operation, just as "creature" is called "creation." For we say, "all creation," meaning the objects created.

^B The multiple acceptance of the word "operation." It must also be noted that operation is motion, and it is acted upon rather than acting, as the Theologian Gregory says in his discourse on the Holy Spirit: "If, however, it is an operation, it will clearly be acted upon, and will not act, and as soon as it has been acted upon, it will cease."

It must also be recognized that life itself is an operation, and indeed the primary operation of a living being; and the entire economy of the living being—everything nutritive and growth-producing, that is, vegetative; everything that occurs through impulse, that is, sensitive; and the rational and self-determining movement—is also an operation. Operation is the fulfillment of power. If, therefore, we perceive all these in Christ, we shall confess that there is also human operation in Him.

Other kinds of operations. As there is a distinction of natures, so there is in Christ a distinction of operations. "Operation" is also said of the first thought that arises within us; and this is a simple and ^C unrelated operation, whereby the mind, by itself, secretly produces its own concepts, without which the mind could not justly be called a mind. Again, "operation" is said of the manifestation and expansion of those things thought of, through the utterance of the word (speech). But this is no longer unrelated and simple, but is considered in relation, being composed of thought and word. And this very relation, which the one acting has toward that which is coming into being, is an operation; and the very thing being produced (36) is called an operation; and the one is of the soul... ^D [alt-version omitted] ...shall be subject to anathema, as those who cut Christ into two persons. For a nature that does not operate at all would have no subsistence whatsoever. It displeased the Eutychians, in the first place, that Leo had introduced a dual nature on account of a dual action: "Each form acts with the communion of the other what is proper to itself." Maximus, in volume II, to Marinus, recalls this acceptance of Anastasius of Antioch, who posits one (operation) of Christ, although he taught several natural actions, and says that he defined nothing else than the individual union and effect, work, I say, and the action by which those (natures) are known. For operation possesses the character of the universal, while effect and work possess that of the particular. But the particular is often spoken of by the name of the universal. But let us hear Anastasius himself from the fragment which I found in the Collection and which our author has copied here. *From the book of Anastasius of Antioch, Concerning Operations*: "Since the word 'operation' is polysemous, the homonym often becomes a cause of error for those..."

who are distracted by the name itself and are led to a meaning other than what the argument intends. For the first [kind of] operation is defined as the movement arising within us; it is simple, carrying no relation, an act ^C of the mind producing its own proper thoughts within itself, without which not even the mind could justly be called a mind. Again, operation is spoken of as the manifestation and unfolding of the things conceived in the mind, by the utterance of speech; this is no longer unrelated, nor simple, but is perceived in a relation. For the relation itself, which he who acts has toward the thing being done, is an operation or act, and so is the thing produced itself; as can be seen in the art of architecture and the building of ships. For the architect had previously looked within himself at what was to be done, for instance the house, and the shipwright at the ship; then they brought what they had thought into the light; they applied [their] manual work again, and completed it. ^D Do you not think each of these to be an operation of the agent? Most certainly. And the one is of the soul alone; the other of the soul using the body; the last is that of the body endowed with an intelligent soul, and furthermore the effect of the action, which is of the man himself. Consider such a thing in your mind regarding the actions of our Savior, about which the question is proposed to us. For the holy Fathers, having perceived the union of the natures, took an example from the common essence of men. Just as, therefore, there is one operation of the intelligent soul, another of the body, and that which is accomplished by these is common to the whole man consisting of both: we notice something of this kind in our Savior, God the Word, who assumed flesh for our sake. We see the divine operations of the divine nature, such as when, from the Virgin Maid who was ignorant of all natural lust, He fashioned His own body without the intercourse of a man; when by the mere impulse of His will He changed water into wine, and other [...] things of that kind: but of the human [nature], I mean the life itself which is proper to man, by which we are moved towards the desire of food for the sake of growth. For life is an operation, and the primary operation of an animal. But if it were not an operation—as some might perhaps imagine—it would clearly be a passion, which is absurd. Therefore it is entirely an operation; but as we consider these, and the natures from which the operations proceed, and at the same time join them together; just as from the natures coming together into one we recognize one person without division and confusion, so too from the diverse actions of the one Christ we perceive the effect.

^A For the breaking of the loaves and the hearing of the leper, "I will, be thou clean," were also for our Jesus; the power of miracles was the act of his divinity, but the works of his hands, and to will, and to say "I will, be thou clean," were the action of his humanity. For the work, if you look at the human nature, is the breaking of the loaves and what the leper heard, "I will"; but if you look at the divine, it is the multiplication of the loaves and the cleansing of the leper. By both actions, that is, of soul and body, he manifested his divine operation to be one and the same, connatural, and equal. For just as we recognize the natures as united and having a circumcession within one another, and yet we do not deny the distinction between them, but rather count them and recognize them as inseparable, so too with the wills and the actions; we recognize both their conjunction and their distinction, and we count them in such a way that we do not introduce division. For just as the flesh has been deified and yet has not undergone a change of its own nature, in the same way the will and the action have been deified and have not departed from their own boundaries; for he is one, who is both this and that, and in such and such a way, that is, both divinely and humanly, he wills and acts. ^B

Therefore, since there are two natures in Christ, it is necessary to say there are two actions also in him. For those whose nature is diverse, of these also the action is disparate; and conversely, those whose nature is the same, of these also the action is the same; but those whose action is one, of these also the essence is one, according to the divinely-spoken Fathers. It is necessary, therefore, to choose one of two things: either, if we say there is one action in Christ, we must also say there is one essence, if we are indeed lovers of the truth, or, if we confess two essences according to the doctrine of the Gospel and the Fathers, we must consistently confess also two actions accompanying them. For in that he is consubstantial with God and the Father according to his divinity, he will be equal also according to his action. And again, in that the same one is consubstantial with us according to his humanity, he will be equal also according to his operation. For the blessed Gregory, bishop of the Nyssaeans, says: "Those whose action is one, of these also the power is precisely the same." For every act and operation is the perfection of power. Furthermore, it is impossible for an uncreated and a created nature to be one nature, or power, or operation. But if we were to say there is one action in Christ, we would be unable to avoid attributing the affections of the intelligent soul, namely fear, I mean, and sorrow, and agony, to the divinity of the Word. ^D

But if they should say that the holy Fathers, when debating about the holy Trinity, said: "Those whose essence is one, of these also the action is one, and those whose essence is diverse, of these also the action is diverse," and claim that it is not right to transfer what is said about the divinity to the economy, we shall reply: if it were said by the Fathers only about the theology, and it does not exist even after the incarnation of the

Son, then He will not be of the same substance. To whom, then, shall we assign the words: ^A *My Father is working until now, and I am working*, and: *Whatever he sees the Father doing, that the Son also does in like manner*, and: *If you do not believe me, believe the works*, and: *The works which I do bear witness of me*, and: *As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills*? For all these things show Him to be not only consubstantial with the Father even after the incarnation, but also of the same operation.

And again: if the providence ^B over all things pertains not only to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also to the Son, and this is an operation, even after the incarnation, then even after the incarnation He is of the same operation as the Father. And if from the miracles we learned that Christ is of the same essence as the Father, and miracles are the operations of God, then after the incarnation He is of the same operation as the Father.

But if there is one operation of His divinity and His flesh, it will be composite, and there will either be ^C an operation other than that of the Father, or the Father will also be of a composite operation. And if He is of a composite operation, manifestly He is also of a composite nature.

If they say that a person is introduced along with an operation, we shall reply that if a person is introduced along with an operation, then by reasonable inversion an operation will also be introduced along with a person; and there will be, just as there are three persons, or hypostases, of the holy Trinity, so too three operations, or just as there is one operation, so there is one person and one hypostasis. ^D But the holy Fathers have taught in harmony that they are of the same essence and of the same operation.

Furthermore, if a person is introduced along with an operation, those who have not ordained that one or two operations of Christ should be declared would not have enjoined Him to be called either one person or two.

And in the case of the red-hot sword, just as the natures of both the fire and the iron are preserved, so too are the two operations and their effects. For the iron has the power of cutting, and the fire the power of burning; and the cutting is the effect of the iron's operation, and the burning that of the fire's; and the difference between them is preserved in the burnt cut and in the cut burning, even if neither the burning occurs without the cutting after the union, nor the cutting without the burning; and neither because of the duality of the natural operation do we speak of two red-hot swords, nor again, because...

of the singularity of the red-hot sword, do we effect a confusion of their substantial distinction. In the same way, in Christ also, the operation of his divinity is divine and omnipotent, and that of his humanity is human and like unto ours. The work of the human action was that he took the girl by the hand and drew her; but the divine, that he recalled her to life. For this is one thing, and that is another, even though they remain inseparable from one another in the theandric operation. But if, because the Lord's person or hypostasis is one, the operation must also be one, then, because of the one hypostasis, one also must be the essence.

^B And again, if we say there is one operation in the Lord, we shall confess it to be either divine, or human, or neither. But if we say it is divine, we shall call him God alone, stripped of the humanity he shares with us. If we say it is human, we shall impiously assert that he is mere man. If, finally, we say it is neither divine nor human, we shall declare him to be neither God nor man, and consubstantial neither with the Father nor with us. For from the union there has come about an identity according to hypostasis, but the difference of the natures has not been taken away. But if the difference of the natures is preserved, then clearly their operations must also be preserved. For there is no nature devoid of operation.

If the operation of the Lord Christ is one, it will be either created or uncreated; for there is no operation between these, just as there is no nature. If, therefore, it is created, it will signify a created nature alone; but if it is uncreated, it will characterize an uncreated essence alone. For it is necessary that natural things be appropriate to the natures; for it is impossible for a nature to exist that is in any way deficient. Furthermore, an operation that is in accordance with nature does not come from things that are outside it; and it is clear that it is impossible for a nature to exist or to be known without its natural operation. For by the things through which each thing operates, its own nature is confirmed, which is that it remains unchanged.

If the operation of Christ is one, it will be the author of both divine and human things alike. But nothing of those things that remain in their natural state has the power to produce opposites; for fire does not chill and warm, nor does water dry and moisten. How then could he who is by nature God, and who became by nature man, have performed both the miracles and the sufferings with a single operation?

If, therefore, Christ assumed a human mind, that is, a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, he has certainly thought and will always think; and since thought is the operation of the mind, Christ is certainly, insofar as he is man, active, and always active.

Christ's passion is an action. — Moreover, the all-wise and great saint John Chrysostom, in the second discourse of his commentary on the Acts, speaks thus: "Nor would one be wrong in calling his passion an act; for in suffering all things, he performed that great and marvelous work, destroying death and accomplishing all other things."

^A If every operation is defined as the substantial motion of some nature, as those skilled in these matters have distinguished, then where can one find a nature that is immobile, or entirely devoid of operation, or find an operation ^B that is not a motion originating from a natural power? No sensible person would grant, according to the blessed Cyril, that there is one natural operation of God and of the creature. Nor does human nature raise Lazarus from the dead, nor does divine power weep; for tears are proper to humanity, while life is proper to the subsistent Life. Nevertheless, both are common to both, because of the identity of the hypostasis. For Christ is one, and His person, that is, His hypostasis, is one; yet He has two natures, His divinity and His humanity. The glory proceeding naturally from the divinity became common to both substances because of the identity of the person; and, conversely, because of the flesh, things that were humble became common to both natures. For He who is both this and that, namely God and man, is one and the same; and those things which pertain to the divinity and those which pertain to the humanity are of the same one. For the divinity performed divine signs, but not without the flesh; and the flesh performed humble deeds, but not without the divinity. For the divinity was conjoined to the suffering flesh while remaining impassible, and performing the saving passions; and the holy mind was conjoined to the operating divinity of the Word, thinking and knowing what was being accomplished. ^C Thus the divinity imparts its own prerogatives to the body, while itself remains ^D unaffected by the passions of the flesh. For not as the divinity acted through the flesh, so also did it...

^A suffer through the divinity. For the flesh served as an instrument of the divinity. If, therefore, even from the moment of conception there was no partition whatsoever between the two forms, and the workings of the whole duration were actions of one person of either form, we nevertheless do not in any way confuse those things which happened without separation, but rather we perceive from the quality of the works what belongs to which form. Christ therefore acts according to either of his natures, and either nature acts in him in communion with the other; the Word performing those things which are of the Word, because of the authority and power of the divinity, which are sovereign and kingly; and the body performing those things which are of the body, according to the will of the Word united to it, of whom it became the own property. For it did not move itself toward natural affections of its own volition, nor did it flee or decline from painful things, or suffer those things that assailed it from without, but it was moved according to the condition of nature, while the Word willed and by certain counsel permitted it to suffer and to do what was proper, so that through the works the truth of the nature might be confirmed. ^B Just as he was embodied beyond substance, being conceived of a Virgin, so also did he perform human deeds beyond what human condition warrants, as when he walked with earthly feet upon unstable and fluid water—not because the water hardened like earth, but because it was established by the transcendent power of the divinity against dissolution, and did not yield to the weight of material feet. For he did not do human things in a human way, since he was not man alone, but also God (whence also his sufferings were life-giving and saving); nor, conversely, did he perform divine things in a divine way, since he was not God alone, but also man. Wherefore he wrought divine signs by touch, and word, and other such means, being not only God, but also man. ^C But if anyone should say, "We do not speak of one action in Christ for the sake of setting aside the human action; but because human action is called a 'passion' when contrasted with divine action," ^D according...

to this reasoning, even those who speak of one nature do so not to abolish the human [nature], but because the human nature is called "passive" when contrasted with the divine nature. Far be it from us to call the human motion a "passion" for the sake of distinguishing it from the divine action. For no thing, to speak universally, has its existence or state known or defined by comparison or collation. For in this way, things that exist would be found to be causes of one another. For if because the divine motion is an action, the human is therefore a "passion," then without doubt the human nature will also be evil, because the divine nature is good; and conversely, if because the human motion is called a "passion," the divine motion is therefore considered an action, then in the same way the divine nature will be good because the human is evil: and thus all creatures will be evil, and he who said, "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen. I, 31), will be found to be a liar.

^C We, however, say that the holy Fathers called the human motion by many names according to the underlying concepts. For they addressed it as power, and operation, and difference, and motion, and property, and quality, and passion, not for the sake of contrasting it with the divine, but as a conserving and immutable power; as an operation, as it is characteristic and manifests the absence of variation in all those of the same species; as a difference, as it is distinguishing; as a motion, as it is indicative; as a property, as it is constitutive, and present to it alone and to no other; as a quality, as it is formative; as a passion, as it is moved. For all things that are from God, and after God, "suffer" in that they are moved, inasmuch as they are not self-motion or self-power; not by way of contrast, as has been said, but according to the reason implanted in it by the Cause that created the whole. Whence, expressing it together with the divine [action], they called it an operation. For ^D he who said, "For each form acts with the communion of the other," did nothing else than he who said, "And when He had fasted forty days, He afterward hungered" (it gave to nature, when He willed, to do what was its own), or those who proclaimed a different action in Him, or a double [action], or one and another? For these things signify two actions by means of pronouns. For even the number is frequently indicated by the substitution of names, and by saying "divine" and "human." For the difference is a difference of things that differ; things that do not exist, how shall they differ?

CAP. XVI. Against those who say: If man is of dual nature and operation, it is necessary to say there are three natures in Christ, and as many operations.

Every individual man, being composed of two natures, to wit, soul and body, and having these immutable within himself, shall reasonably be called ^A of two natures. For he preserves the natural property of either, even after the union. For the body is not immortal, but subject to decay; nor is the soul mortal, but immortal; nor again is the body invisible, nor can the soul be seen by bodily eyes; but the latter is rational, intelligent, and incorporeal, while the former is gross, visible, and devoid of reason. Those things that are divided by the reason of essence are not of one nature; therefore, soul and body are not of the same essence.

And again: if man is a rational, mortal animal, and every definition is declarative of the underlying natures, and rational is not the same as mortal according to the rule of nature, then man would not be of one nature according to the rule of his own definition. ^B But if man is ever called of one nature, the name of "nature" is taken in place of "species," as when we say that one man does not differ from another by any difference of nature; but all men, having the same constitution and being composed of soul and body, and each man forming two natures, are all brought under one definition. And this does not seem unreasonable, since the holy Athanasius also said there is one nature of all created things, as they are originate, in the discourse he wrote against those who were impiously disparaging the Holy Spirit, speaking in this way: "That the Holy Spirit is above created things, and is something other than the nature of things originate, and proper to the divinity, it is possible to see again. For everything that is surveyed commonly and in many things, being more in one and less in another, is called an essence." Since, therefore, every man is composed of soul and body, according to ^C the sub-division of the parts into parts, this is not of dogmatic brevity, nor of the speech abbreviated according to the Gospel, but of skeptical speculation. Soul and body are not parts of Christ, but parts of a part; otherwise one must confess not three only, but many natures in Christ.

^A It is also possible to observe the following: whatever is considered commonly and in many, and does not inhere more abundantly in one and more sparingly in another, is called essence. Since, therefore, every man is composed of soul and body, for this reason a single nature is predicated of all. But in the person of the Lord, we cannot speak of a single nature. For both natures preserve their natural property, even after the union, and it is impossible to find a species of Christ apart from divinity and humanity; for Christ did not become someone else, being both God and man.

^B And again: it is not the same thing to be one according to species as to be one according to the substance of soul and body. For "one according to the species of man" indicates the most exact similarity in all men; but "one according to the essence of soul and body" would destroy their existence and reduce them entirely to nothing. For either one will migrate into the essence of the other, or one will be generated from others, and thus both will be changed, or, staying within their own bounds, they will constitute two natures. For, as far as essence is concerned, body and what is incorporeal are not the same. It is not, therefore, necessary that because we speak of one essence in man—not because the quality of soul and body is identical, but due to the most exact equality of individuals referred to the same species—we must also speak of one nature in Christ, where there is no such species containing many persons.

Further, every composition

^A of which they are composed, is what is called "composed." For we do not say that a house is composed of earth and water, but of bricks and wood. Since it is necessary that a man also be said to be composed of at least five natures, namely of the four elements and the soul. Thus also in our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not look at the constituent parts of the parts, but at those which are immediately composed, that is, divinity and humanity.

Furthermore, if because we say man consists of two natures, we are forced to say there are three natures in Christ, then you too, who say man is of two natures, must likewise assert that Christ is composed of three natures. The same must also be said concerning the actions: for the action must be consistent with the nature. But that man is called and is of a dual nature, Gregory the Theologian is witness ^B, saying: "There are two natures, God and man, since there is also soul and body." And again in his Oration on Baptism he says: "Since we consist of a double nature, namely soul and body, the one visible, the other invisible, the baptism is also double, namely by water and spirit."

CAP. XVII. Concerning the fact that the nature and will of the Lord’s flesh have been deified.

The deification of Christ’s flesh is to be understood as follows—but it is worth the effort to know that the Lord's flesh did not ^C cast off its nature; even if it was permeated to such an extent, it still preserves its essential difference. For it did not cease from its own logos. For the divine nature remained unchangeable in the assumption of the mass [the human nature], which all divinely inspired Scripture sets forth. Moreover, no image can be found which perfectly represents this union. Nevertheless, we will try to bring forward one which, although it does not attain to the magnitude of the mystery due to its smallness, yet as regards the rest, it approaches the likeness more closely. For example, if someone were to imagine all the air which is under heaven being set on fire, or rather being fire, and if a grain of mustard seed or millet were cast into such great fire, it must necessarily take on the properties of what is more powerful, so that nothing is seen to be there except fire, even though the definition of its substance subsists. In the same way, the human nature, united to the Word of God, was so overcome that it no longer seemed to be the nature of a man, and for this reason the Fathers say it has been deified ^D not by a change, or alteration, or mutation, or confusion, of nature; since, as has been said, it preserves its essential difference. For the divine nature remained unchangeable in the assumption of the mass, which all divinely inspired Scripture confirms. This Anastasius teaches, cited in the *Collectanea*, and cited in Euthymius, book II, *Panoplia*, tit. 7. And Nicephorus teaches that this deification is fully accomplished in the resurrection: "Since it has been stripped of corruption and mortality, it has been transformed into that which is better," when the flesh is transformed.

^A It is said to be deified and co-deified, and also God, as Gregory the Theologian says: “Of which the one bestowed deity, and the other was bestowed with deity; and I will be bold to say, a co-sharer of the same deity. And that which anointed became man, and God that which was anointed.” These things are not said by way of a change of nature, but by way of the economy of union according to hypostasis, in accordance with which it is inseparably united to the Word of God, and through which there is a mutual indwelling of the natures, as we say regarding the heating of iron. For just as we confess the incarnation without change and conversion, so we hold the deification of the flesh to have occurred. For neither did the Word, because he became flesh, depart from the heights of his own divinity or the god-befitting excellences belonging to it; nor again was the flesh, having been deified, turned away from its own natural properties. For after the union, the natures remain unconfused, and their properties remain unharmed. But the flesh of the Lord became enriched by divine energies because of that most sincere union with the Word, which is according to hypostasis, while in no way suffering the loss of its natural properties. For it did not perform divine acts by its own power, but by the Word united to it, the Word demonstrating through it his own energy; for the heated iron burns, not as possessing the burning power by a natural law, but by having acquired this from the union with fire, and by exercising it through that. For indeed, glowing iron does not burn because it has the power to burn by nature, but because it has contracted that power from its conjunction with fire.

^C As also the human will was deified. And so, the same flesh was by its own nature mortal, and because of the hypostatic union with the Word, it conferred life. In a similar way, we teach the deification of the will, not that the natural motion was changed, but that it was united to his divine and almighty will, and became the will of the God who became man. Whence, when he wished to remain hidden, he could not, because of ^D the God-Logos who had become man having shown it in himself to be truly the weakness of the human will. But wishing the leprosy...

CONCERNING THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK III

[he] performed the cleansing, because of the union with the divine will.

It should be known that the deification of both the nature and the will is a most emphatic and demonstrative proof of both the two natures and the two wills. For just as the igniting of a substance does not change the nature of the ignited thing into the nature of fire, but manifests both the ignited thing and that which ignited it, and is ^A indicative not of one, but of two, so also the deification does not create one composite nature, but two, and the union according to hypostasis. For the Theologian Gregory says: "Of which one deified, and the other was deified." For by saying "of which the one, and the other," he indicated two realities. ^B

CHAPTER XVIII. Again concerning the two wills, and the freedom of the will; likewise concerning the mind, and the two-fold knowledge and wisdom.

Saying that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, we shall surely attribute to Him all things—both those which are natural to the Father and those which are natural to the Mother. For He became man, in order that He might conquer what had been conquered. For He who is all-powerful was not unable, by His own omnipotent authority and power, to deliver man from the tyranny of the tyrant; but there would have been a pretext for complaint for the one playing the tyrant, [had he been] deprived of his prize through force by God after having himself conquered man. Therefore, God, out of His mercy and benevolence toward men, becomes man, so that He might restore like by like.

The soul and human mind were assumed, against the Apollinarians.

That man is a rational and intelligent animal, no one will deny. How then did He become man, if He took an inanimate flesh or a soulless mind? For this is by no means man. And what benefit comes to us from the humanity assumed by Him, if salvation was not brought to the one who first contracted the stain, nor was it brought to pass that he should be renewed and strengthened through conjunction with the divinity? For what is not assumed is not healed; therefore He assumed the whole man, and thus that part of him which was subject to disease, so that He might bestow salvation upon the whole. Furthermore, there has never been a mind that is destitute of wisdom and cognition. For if it is inactive and motionless, then it does not possess any reason at all. ^C

Therefore, the God-Logos, wishing to renew that which is in the image, became man. And what is that which is in the image,

^A except the mind? If this were omitted, and he assumed only what is inferior, would he have assumed the image? For the mind is in the middle ground between God and the flesh: being as it were a cohabiter with the flesh, and the image of God. The mind, therefore, is joined to the mind, and the mind mediates between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh; for if the Lord had assumed a mind-less soul, he would have assumed the soul of an irrational animal.

The objection of the Apollinarists is solved. Soul and flesh are used for "man" in Scripture.

The human will of Christ is subject to the divine.

NOTES

(45). *Voluntary to it.* Or rather, free. For Christ says: *No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. And I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again.* This commandment I have received from my Father. From Chrysostom: by saying that he received a commandment ^D from the Father, he shows nothing else than this: *I do what pleases Him.* Hence, lest when you hear "commandment," you might think this noble work was foreign to him, he continues: *The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep*; hence he shows that his sheep, and whatever is rightly done, is his own work, and that he does not need a commandment. Cyril of Alexandria points to the same thing in Book X on John: "The Father's purposes," he says, "were in the place of commandments to Christ. For since, being the Word, he perceives the counsels of the Father and searches the depths of the Begetter, he executes that which has appeared to him, and holds it in the place of a commandment." Where he repeats what he had taught at the beginning of Book VI, taking Christ's statement everywhere in the same sense as Chrysostom.

^A it was he who was about to drink the cup; for he was not about to drink it as God. As man, therefore, he wishes for the cup to pass away—these are expressions of natural fear—*Nevertheless, not as I will,* that is, insofar as I am of a different substance from you, *but as you will,* that is, as I am also your own, insofar as I am consubstantial with you. These are again words of courage, for the soul of the Lord, having first experienced natural weakness, and having perceived the sensation of pain from the separation of the body, was then strengthened by the divine will and conceived courage against death. For because the same person was wholly God with his humanity, and wholly man with his divinity, he himself, as man, in himself and through himself, subjected that which was human to God the Father, giving us an excellent pattern and example, and he became obedient to the Father.

Now, he willed self-determinedly regarding both the divine and the human will. For to every rational nature there is naturally inherent a self-determined will. For what would the rational exercise have, if it did not deliberate self-determinedly? For the Creator implanted a natural appetite even in irrational creatures, leading them necessarily toward the preservation of their own nature. For being devoid of reason, they cannot lead themselves, but are led by natural appetite. Wherefore, as soon as appetite arises, ^B immediately the impulse toward action follows; for they do not use reason, or counsel, or reflection, or judgment. Hence, they are neither praised and called blessed as if they were pursuing virtue, nor punished as if they were doing evil. But the rational nature has indeed a natural appetite that is moved, yet it is such that in those things which preserve integrity consonant with nature, it is governed and regulated by reason. For this is the excellence of reason: a self-determined will, which we call a natural movement in a rational substance. For this reason, when it cultivates virtue, it obtains praise and is proclaimed blessed, and when it gives itself over to vice, it is punished.

^C So the soul of the Lord did indeed will, moving self-determinedly, but it willed self-determinedly only those things which his divine will willed it to will. For the flesh was not moved by the nod of the Word—as Moses and all the saints were moved by the divine nod—but he himself, being one and the same, both God and man, willed by both his divine and his human will. For this reason, it was not by counsel and intent, but rather by the character of natural faculty, that the two wills of the Lord differed from one another. For his divine will was without beginning and omnipotent, possessing the power that follows it, and impassible; while his human will ^D and...

indeed his human nature had a beginning in time and sustained those passions which are natural and blameless. His nature indeed was not omnipotent, but as it had truly and naturally become of the Word of God, it lacked nothing. ^A

Chapter XIX: On the Theandric, or God-manly, action.

The blessed Dionysius, in speaking of a new theandric action ^B performed by Christ among us, does not say this to abolish the natural actions, nor does he affirm a single action generated from both the human and divine. For then we would also have to say that there is a single new nature generated from both the divine and the human; for those things whose action is one, have, according to the Fathers, one essence also. But he wishes to show the new and ineffable manner in which Christ's natural actions were manifested, in accordance with the ineffable manner of the interpenetration ^C of Christ’s two natures—a manner appropriate to his life among men, strange and paradoxical, and unknown to the nature of existing things—and also the manner of his according to the [divine] ineffable... ^D [The text continues in the next block]. The blessed Dionysius [meant that he] was not mere man, nor did he act as a man merely from among men, but being God he became man, and lived among us beyond the lot of men and beyond man; and thereafter, he did not perform divine things according to God, nor human things according to man, but as God having become man, he brought forth among us a certain new God-manly action. We, as we have already written at great length in other places, having received the voice of the all-wise Dionysius the Areopagite, who says that "the God who became man brought forth among us a new God-manly action," have conceived and do conceive it as a single action, for it is impossible to conceive it otherwise, since every duality is excluded. For we confess that God, having become man, performed and expressed this in a new way, and that there is one nature and one hypostasis that is God-manly, just as there is one nature of the Word of God incarnate. For since the principle of the dispensation of the incarnate Word has renewed the natures, it has also renewed the designations along with them. Therefore, when Christ is one, ascending the high mountain, as it is said, we proclaim from thence that one hypostasis, one nature, and one composite operation of him, pronouncing anathema on all those who after the union teach two natures and [two] operations. This is the position of Severus and his followers. But Anastasius of Sinai interprets this passage of the falsely-named Dionysius in the same way as Maximus and other conquerors of the Monothelites, saying: "He did not receive human things in a bare, human manner, but as it behooved him who was God and man at once; which things were indeed performed in a God-manly and indivisible way in the one singular person of Christ, whilst the property of each nature was preserved unconfused, so that it might be discovered that Christ, by his incarnation, performed those things which are natural and blameless in a manner above man." I do not add the exposition of John of Scythopolis, which, although it comes to the same thing, is woven together with such words that one might infer from this very passage that he, rather than Maximus, is the parent of these Scholia on Dionysius. Sophronius, in his letter to Sergius, after he had reprimanded Cyrus of Alexandria because in his seventh anathema he had not posited a new God-manly action, but a single action, teaches moreover that there were other actions of Christ that were merely divine, and others that were merely human, and that there were others of a certain middle kind, as they possessed both something divine and something human jointly.

^A union by way of interchange. For we do not say that the operations are divided, nor that the natures operate separately, but rather that each, in union with the communion of the other, operates that which it has peculiarly its own. For He did not perform human things in a human manner—for He was not mere man—nor divine things according to God alone—for He was not a bare God—but He was God simultaneously existing as man. For just as we understand the union of the natures and their natural distinction, so too do we understand the union of the natural wills and operations.

^B It is to be known, therefore, that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, we sometimes hold our discourse as of two natures, and sometimes as of one person; and this and that is referred to one and the same conception. For the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures. It is therefore the same thing to say: Christ operates according to each of His natures, and: each nature operates in Christ with the communion of the other. The divine nature, therefore, communicates with the flesh as it operates, because by the good pleasure of the divine will it is permitted to suffer and to do its own things, and because the action of the flesh is altogether salvific—which is not of human action, but rather of divine action. And the flesh, in turn, communicated with the divinity of the Word as It was operating, both because it performed the divine actions through the body as through a certain instrument, and because He who was operating was one and the same, operating at once in a divine and in a human manner.

^C It is to be known, however, that His holy mind also executes its own natural actions. For it thinks and knows that it is the mind of God, and that it is adored by all creation, and it remembers its sojournings and sufferings upon earth. Furthermore, it communicates with the divinity of the Word as It operates, whereby all things are ruled and governed, understanding, knowing, and administering all things—not as the simple and naked mind of a man, but as one which is united to God according to hypostasis, and which exists as the mind of God.

^D The theandric action of Christ, therefore, declares nothing other than that, God having been made man—that is, having become incarnate—His every human action was divine, or deified, and not devoid of His divine operation; and again, His divine operation was not devoid of His human operation, but each was considered together with the other.

Circumlocution

two things. Just as we speak of the "incised burning" of a flaming sword, and its "burnt incision," yet we assert that the incision is distinct from the burning, and that they belong to different natures—that is, the burning to the fire and the incision to the iron—in the same way, while speaking of the one theandric operation of Christ, we understand the two operations of his two natures: the divine operation of his divinity, and the human operation of his humanity.

CHAPTER XX.

On natural and blameless passions.

He assumed everything, therefore, in order to sanctify everything. He was tempted and he conquered, in order to procure victory for us and to confer upon our nature the power to conquer the adversary, so that the nature that was once conquered might, through those same assaults by which it was overcome, finally wrest the victory from the conqueror.

The evil one, ^D therefore, made his assault from the outside, not through mental suggestions, just as he did with Adam; for he did not approach even him through mental suggestions, but through the serpent. But the Lord repelled the assault and dispelled it like smoke, so that the passions that had attacked him, being conquered...

^A by him, might easily be conquered by us, and so the new Adam might save the old one.

Indeed, our natural passions in Christ were ^B both according to nature and above nature. According to nature, because they were stirred in him when he allowed the flesh to undergo what was proper to it; but above nature, because in the Lord those things which were natural did not anticipate the will. For nothing compelled is seen in him, but everything is voluntary. He hungered voluntarily, he thirsted voluntarily, he was afraid voluntarily, he died voluntarily.

CHAPTER XXI.

On ignorance and servitude.

It is necessary to know ^C that he assumed a nature that was ignorant and servile. For the nature of man is indeed servile to God who created it, and does not possess knowledge of future things. If, therefore, according to Gregory the Theologian, you separate that which is beheld from that which is understood, the flesh is called both servile and ignorant. But because of the identity of the person and the inseparable union, the soul of the Lord was enriched with the knowledge of future things, just as with other divine signs. For just as the flesh of men, according to its own nature, is not life-giving, yet the flesh of the Lord ^D is not... [original-script column: see facsimile] ...that many of the Fathers, indeed almost all, appear to say that he was ignorant.

is not life-giving, yet the flesh of the Lord is not ^A exempt from its natural mortality, but yet, by reason of the hypostatic union with the Word, it has been made life-giving; and it is not right to say that it was either not life-giving or is not always so. Thus, human nature does not of its own essence possess the knowledge of future things; but the soul of the Lord, by reason of its union with God the Word himself and because of the identity of hypostasis, was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of future things, just as it was with the power of the rest of the miracles.

It must be known [(51)] that we cannot even call him a slave; for the terms of slavery and lordship are not marks of nature, but are relative terms, just as are those of fatherhood and sonhood. For these do not indicate essence, but relationship. As we said, therefore, regarding ignorance: if by refined reasoning, that is, by subtle mental considerations, you separate what is created from what is uncreated, the flesh is servile if it were not united to God the Word. But since it was once united according to hypostasis, how will it be a slave? For since Christ is one, he cannot be both his own slave and his own Lord; for these are not among terms said absolutely, but are among those said in relation to another. Whose slave, then, will he be? The Father's? Then are not all things ^B that the Father has also the Son's, if he is a slave of the Father but in no way of himself? And how does the Apostle speak concerning us, who have been adopted through him: "So you are no longer a slave, but a son" [(88)], if he himself is a slave? Therefore, he is called a slave descriptively, not being one in reality, but because he took the form of a slave for our sake, and was called a slave along with us. For being impassible, he served the passions for our sake, and became a minister of our salvation. But those who say that he is a slave divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. We, however, declare him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, the same being at once God and man, and knowing all things: "In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [(89)].

CHAPTER XXII.

Concerning progress

He is said to progress in wisdom, age, and grace.

because he grew in age; ^A and through the increase of age, he brought the wisdom that was already in him into outward manifestation. Furthermore, he considered the progress of men in wisdom and grace, and the fulfillment of the Father's good pleasure—that is, the knowledge of God and the salvation of men—as his own progress, claiming as his own our condition in all things. But those who say that he progressed in wisdom and grace as if receiving an increase of these, do not hold that the union of the flesh took place from the very first realization of existence, nor do they champion union according to hypostasis; but, being persuaded by the empty-minded Nestorius, they talk nonsense about a relative union and a bare indwelling, not knowing what they are saying nor whereof they affirm. For if the flesh was truly united to the Word of God from its first existence, ^B or rather, if it existed in him and had the hypostatic identity with him, how could it not have been perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace? Not that it partook of grace, nor shared in the things of the Word through grace, but rather, because of the union according to hypostasis, human and divine things became the property of the one Christ. Since the same one was both God and man at once, he poured forth grace, wisdom, and the fullness of all good things into the world like a fountain.

CHAPTER XXIII. Concerning fear.

A twofold fear. What natural fear is, and as it exists in Christ.

^A and the natural danger arising from these; while in those things that bring destruction, he showed a shrinking back, so that at the time of his passion he voluntarily admitted a state of compression from the fear of death. For although the things that happened were in accordance with the law of nature, they were not, as is the case for us, by necessity. For he took upon himself what was natural, willingly and freely. And consequently, this fear, trepidation, and dread is a natural and blameless affection, not subject to sin.

There is, again, fear that arises from a failure of reasoning, from unbelief, and from the ignorance of the hour of death, as when we are afraid at night due to some noise. This is unnatural, and is defined as follows: unnatural fear is an unforeseen shrinking. This kind of fear the Lord did not assume. Therefore, he never feared, except at the time of the passion, although otherwise he often withdrew himself by a deliberate plan; for he was not ignorant of the time.

That he truly feared, the holy Athanasius is witness, saying in his discourse against Apollinarius: “For this reason the Lord said: ‘Now my soul is troubled’ (John XII, 27). But the ‘now’ here means ‘when he wished it’; however, it shows what was present. For he did not name what was not there as if it were present, as if the things being said were happening only in appearance; for all things were happening by nature and in truth.” And after other things: “In no way does the Godhead admit of passion without a body that suffers, nor does it show disturbance and sadness without a soul that is saddened and disturbed, nor is it anxious and praying without a mind that is anxious and praying. ^C But even if the things that occurred did not happen by a defeat of nature, they happened in demonstration of his being.” Now, that they did not occur by a defeat of nature means that he did not suffer these things against his will.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the Lord’s Prayer.

Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God, or the petition of what is fitting from God. How, then, did the Lord pray at the tomb of Lazarus, and at the time of his passion? For his holy mind did not need an ascent to God, having been once and for all united to God the Word according to hypostasis, nor did it need to make a petition from God (for Christ is one). But because he was assuming our ^D person, and fashioning our nature in himself, and becoming an example to us, and teaching us to ask of God, and to be lifted up to him, and through his own holy mind making a way for us to ascend to God.

^A For just as he endured the passions, bestowing upon us the victory over them, so also he prays, making a way for us, as I said, to ascend to God, and fulfilling all righteousness on our behalf, as he said to John, and reconciling his own Father to us, and honoring him as his beginning and cause, and showing that he is not a counter-god. For when he said at the time of Lazarus, "Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always; but I said it for the sake of the crowd standing around, that they may believe that thou didst send me," is it not most evident to everyone that he spoke these words for no other reason than to honor the Father as his beginning and cause, and to show that he is not a counter-god?

^B And again, when he said: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt," does not everyone clearly see that he spoke thus to teach us to implore help from God alone in temptations, and to place the divine will before our own, and to show that he truly adopted the things that belong to our nature; and that in truth he possessed two wills, natural ones, and suited to his natures, but in no way contrary to each other? "Father," he says, as being of the same substance; "if it be possible," not as one who is ignorant—for what is impossible to God?—but as one instructing us to prefer the divine will over our own. For this alone is impossible, that which God does not will or permit. "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt": as God, he has the same will as the Father, but as man, he naturally manifests the will of humanity; for this naturally shrinks from death.

^C And as for that, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he uttered it because he was bearing our person. For he would not have called the Father his God, were it not that he was placed among us, separating the visible from the intelligible—if one were to distinguish them by the subtle imaginings of the mind—nor by ^D our nature, but by that which I said, he typifies our folly and our sin, making our condition his own.

^A nor was he ever deserted by his divinity; but we were the ones who were abandoned and despised. For this reason, assuming our person, he uttered these requests.

CAP. XXV.

De appropriatione seu vindicatione (On Appropriation or Vindication)

One makes something his own in two ways. We ought to know that there is a double vindication: one which is natural and substantial, and another which is personal and according to respect. The natural and substantial is that by which God, on account of his benevolence toward humanity, assumed both our nature and all natural properties, truly and by nature becoming man and experiencing those things that fall under our nature. The personal and according to respect, however, takes place when someone, out of affection, say, or pity, or love, assumes the person of another and, in his stead, utters words that do not pertain to himself. ^B It is by this kind of vindication that the Lord made our curse, our abandonment, and other such things that are not natural to him, his own—not that he was these things, or was born as such, but that he took upon himself our person and was numbered among us. In this sense is taken the saying: *He became a curse for us*.

CHAPTER XXVI.

De corporis Domini passione, ipsiusque divinitate impassibilitate (On the Passion of the Body of the Lord, and the Impassibility of His Divinity)

The Word of God himself, therefore, endured all things in the flesh, while his divine and solely impassible nature remained immune to any suffering. For since one and the same Christ, who is composed of divinity and humanity and subsists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part ^C which by its natural condition had the capacity for suffering, suffered; but that which was impassible did not suffer along with it. For the soul, while passible, even if the body is cut, does not itself in the least feel the pain of the bodily wound; whereas the divinity, being impassible, does not suffer along with the body.

One must also know that we say that God suffered in the flesh, but not that the divinity suffered in the flesh, nor that God suffered through the flesh. ^D

^A For if the sun’s rays were shining upon a tree, and an axe were to cut the tree, the sun would remain uncut and impassible; much more does the impassible divinity of the Word, which is hypostatically united to the flesh, remain impassible while the flesh suffers. And just as if someone were to pour water upon red-hot iron, the fire—for that is what I mean—is naturally affected by the water and is extinguished, yet the iron remains unharmed, for it is not its nature to be corrupted by water; ^B much more so, when the flesh suffers, the divinity alone, being impassible, does not admit of the passion, yet remains inseparable from it. For examples do not necessarily have to correspond in every respect and in every detail. For in examples, both what is similar and what is different must be observed, for the very reason that they are examples. For that which in all respects is the same would be identical, and not an example, especially in divine matters. For it is impossible to find an example in all respects identical, whether in theology or in the economy.

CAPUT XXVII. That the divinity of the Word remained inseparable from soul and body, even in the death of the Lord, and that one person remained meanwhile.

^C Since our Lord Jesus Christ was pure from every stain of sin—for "He did no sin, who takes away the sin of the world, nor was guile found in His mouth"—He was in no way subject to death, if indeed "death entered into the world through sin." He dies, therefore, by accepting death for our sake, and offers Himself to the Father as a sacrifice for our sake. For we had sinned against Him, and to Him the price of our redemption had to be paid, that in this way we might be liberated from condemnation. Far be it, however, that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant! ^D Death therefore approaches, and greedily swallowing the bait of the body, it is transfixed by the hook of the divinity; and having tasted of the sinless

^A and life-giving body, it perishes, and brings back all whom it had swallowed long ago. For just as shadows disappear upon the introduction of light, so corruption is dispelled by the approach of life, and there comes to be life for all, but death to the destroyer. Even if he has died, therefore, as a man, and his holy soul was separated from his immaculate body, yet the divinity remained unseparated from both, I mean from the soul and from the body, and not even in this way was the one hypostasis divided into two hypostases. For both the body and the soul had their existence in the same way from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though separated from one another, each of them remained, possessing the one hypostasis of the Word. So the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis both of the Word itself, and of the soul, and of the body; for neither the soul nor the body ever had a hypostasis of their own apart from the hypostasis of the Word, but the hypostasis of the Word is always one, and never two. Thus the hypostasis of Christ is always one. For even if ^B the soul was separated from the body locally, yet hypostatically it was united through the Word.

CAP. XXVIII. On corruption and corruptibility.

The name of corruption signifies two things. It signifies ^C

— Christ’s one person, nowhere divided from itself, even if its parts were distracted. ^B 251 Although, therefore, Christ died as a man, and his holy soul was distracted from his immaculate body, the divinity was nevertheless in no way whatsoever separated from either of them, that is, neither from the soul nor from the body; nor for this reason was the one person divided into two. For both body and soul existed from the beginning in the person of the Word; and although they were parted in death, yet each of them always possessed the one person of the Word by which it subsisted. Wherefore one and the same hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of both the Word and the body. For neither soul nor body ever had a peculiar subsistent existence distinct from the subsistence of the Word; but there was always one hypostasis and subsistence of the Word, and it was never double. For this reason the person of Christ was also always one. For although the soul was separated from the body with respect to place, it was nonetheless united hypostatically through the Word.

CAP. XXVIII. On corruption and corruptibility.

Corruption is double: in the first sense, Christ’s ^D corruptible condition...

that is, these human sufferings: hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing of the nails, death—which is to say the departure of the soul from the body, and suchlike—is accepted. In this sense, we say the Lord's body was corruptible; for He willingly took on all these things. But corruption also signifies the absolute dissolution and extinction of the body into the elements from which it was composed; this is more commonly called decay. The Lord’s body did not experience this, as the prophet David says: For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see ^B corruption.

Therefore, to say that the Lord’s body was incorruptible before the resurrection, according to the first meaning of corruption, in the manner of the mad Julian and Gaianus, is impious. For if it were incorruptible, it was certainly not of the same substance as us; and those things which the Evangelists record as having happened—hunger, thirst, nails, the piercing of the side, death—happened only in appearance and not in truth. But if these things occurred only in appearance, then the mystery of the Economy was a deception and a phantom, and He became man in appearance only and not in truth, and we were saved in appearance only and not in truth—but away with such a thought! May those who say such things be estranged from salvation. We, however, have attained and shall attain true salvation. But according to the ^C second meaning of corruption, we confess the Lord’s body to be incorruptible, just as the God-bearing Fathers have handed down to us. Indeed, after the Savior’s resurrection from the dead, we also call the Lord’s body incorruptible even according to the first meaning; for the Lord bestowed resurrection and subsequent incorruption upon our own body through His own body, having Himself become the firstfruits of our resurrection, incorruption, and impassibility. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, says the divine Apostle.

^D The Fathers say. But this is not the time to dispute about these matters, for the dogma of the faith does not concern the state of Adam. The Lord did not come to save Adam while he was innocent, so as to become like him, but rather as one guilty of sin and already fallen, so that, by suffering together with him, He might also raise him up with Himself. Because the heretics inferred from the authorities of certain Fathers that Christ’s body was free from corruption, our author distinguishes that double genus of corruption, which he discusses at the beginning of the chapter.

CHAPTER XXIX. On the descent into hell.

Therefore, the deified soul descended into hell, so that, just as the Sun of righteousness had risen for those upon the earth, so also it might shine upon those beneath the earth, sitting in darkness and the shadow of death. And as he had evangelized peace to those on earth, remission to the captives, and sight to the blind, and had become the cause of eternal salvation to those who believed, and the refutation of unbelief to those who did not, so also it was for those in hell, so that to him every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. In this way, having loosed those who had been bound from every age, he returned again from the dead, paving the way for us to the resurrection.

BOOK FOURTH

CHAPTER I. On those things following the resurrection.

Christ after the resurrection is impassible. Why he took food after it. That all human things were complete in Him.—After Christ rose from the dead, he put off all infirmities, I mean corruption, hunger and thirst, sleep and weariness, and such like. For although he tasted of food after the resurrection, it was not...

constrained by the law of nature: nor did he suffer hunger, but [he did it] by a certain dispensation, to confirm the faith that he had truly returned to life, and that it was the same flesh which had been dead that had revived. Furthermore, he cast off no part of his nature, neither body nor soul. Rather, he possessed both body and soul, endowed with reason and intellect, and with the power of willing and acting; and thus he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, willing our salvation in a divine and human manner: divinely, inasmuch as he provides for all things, preserving and governing them; but humanly, inasmuch as he keeps in mind the life he lived on earth, seeing and knowing that he is adored by every rational creature. ^B For his holy soul is aware that it is united to the Word of God according to hypostasis, and is adored together with him, as the soul of God, and not as a simple soul. And the ascending from earth to heaven, and the returning again, are actions of a circumscribed body: "For in this way," he says, "he will come again to you, in the manner ye have seen him going into heaven."

CAP. II. On the session at the right hand of the Father.

^C We say that Christ sits at the right hand of God and the Father corporally, but we do not say that the Father’s right hand is a place. For how could the Uncircumscribed have a right hand defined by place? Right and left belong to those things which are circumscribed by place. But by the word "the Father's right hand," we signify the honor and glory of the divinity, in which the Son of God, existing as God and consubstantial with the Father before the ages, having become flesh in the last times, sits also corporally, his own flesh having been taken into the same glory. For he is adored, he and his own flesh, with one adoration by all created ^D things.

Chapter III

^A Against those who object thus: If Christ has two natures, you either worship the creature, by adoring a created nature, or you say that one nature is to be adored, and the other is not.

We adore the Son of God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, incorporeal before the incarnation, and now the same one made flesh and become man, while still being God. His flesh, therefore, according to its own nature—if you distinguish by subtle considerations that which is seen from that which is understood—is not to be adored, as it is created. But having been united to the Word of God, it is adored for his sake and in him. For just as a king is adored both unclothed and clothed, and purple cloth, as mere purple, is trampled and thrown away, but once it has become royal attire, it is honored and glorified, and if anyone treats it indecorously, he is, as a rule, condemned to death; ^B and as wood itself, which is mere wood, is not inaccessible to touch, but once it has come into contact with fire and become a coal, it becomes inaccessible, not of itself, but on account of the fire joined to it, and it is not the nature of the wood that is inaccessible, but the coal, that is, the burning wood: so too the flesh, according to its own nature, is not to be adored; yet it is adored in the incarnate Word of God, not for itself, but on account of the God Word hypostatically united to it. And we do not say that we adore mere flesh, but the flesh of God, that is, God incarnate.

Chapter IV

^C Why the Son of God became man, and not the Father, nor the Spirit; and what he achieved by becoming man.

The Father is the Father, and not the Son; the Son is the Son, and not the Father; the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and not the Father or the Son; for the property of the hypostases is immutable.

For how could the property remain if it were changeable and shifting? Therefore, the Son of God becomes the Son of man, that the property may remain immutable. For the Son of God has become the Son of man, having been incarnate from the holy Virgin, and not having departed from his divine property.

^A But the Son of God became man, in order that He might grant back to man that for which He had made him. For we were made in the image of God, rational and self-determining, and in His likeness, that is, perfect in virtues, as far as it is possible for human nature; for these are, as it were, characters of the divine nature, being undisturbed and undivided, and pure, the good, the wise, the just, and free from all wickedness. In fellowship with Himself He established man in incorruption; for He did not make him for this alone, but through His own fellowship led him to the incorruptible. And since by the transgression of the commandment we had darkened and effaced the characters of the divine image, and had become involved in the fellowship of the evil one—for the participation of light had become darkness—and had been cast out of life, we had fallen into the destruction of death; and because He gave us the better part—which I have said is participation in the divine nature—and we did not keep it, therefore that which is worse, namely, our nature, He made participant in Himself, so that per se and in the likeness of our image He might restore the beauty, and by virtues might fashion for us the way of life, and might Himself minister to us that way, and teach us, and by fellowship in life might free us from destruction, having become the firstfruits of our resurrection, and might renew the vessel which had been crushed and rendered useless, and finally, having snatched us from the tyranny of the devil, might strengthen us, and by patience and humility teach us to strike down the tyrant.

^D The worship of demons has ceased, and creation has been hallowed by the divine blood; altars and temples of idols have been destroyed, the knowledge of God has been planted, the consubstantial and uncreated Trinity is worshipped, one true God is known, the Creator of all things; virtues are practiced, the hope of the resurrection is given through the resurrection of Christ: demons dread those whom they formerly held as subjects; and what is wonderful, all these things have been achieved through the cross and the sufferings and the death of Christ. The Gospel of the knowledge of God has been proclaimed to the whole world, not by war, and arms, and armies turning back the adversaries, but by a few naked, poor, and unlettered men, who, while persecuted, tormented, and put to death, preached Him who was crucified in the flesh and had died, and they overcame the wise and powerful; for the omnipotent power of the Crucified followed them. Death, formerly most fearful, has been defeated, and that which was once hated and detestable is now preferred to life. These are the achievements of Christ’s presence; these are the tokens of His power. For He did not, as through Moses, save one people out of Egypt and from the slavery of Pharaoh by dividing the sea; but rather He rescued all humanity from the corruption of death and from the bitter tyrant, sin; not leading them to virtue by force, not by burying them in the earth, and burning them with fire, and commanding those who sin to be stoned, but by gentleness and longsuffering persuading men to choose virtue, and to strive and take delight in the labors for it; for of old, indeed, when they sinned they were punished, and yet they still clung to sin, and sin was accounted as a god to them; but now, for the sake of piety and virtue, they choose torments, and tortures, and death. Well done, O Christ, Word of God, and wisdom, and power, and God Almighty; what could we, who are destitute, render to Thee for all these things? For all things are Thine, and Thou askest nothing from us but our salvation, Thou Thyself giving even this, and knowing how to be grateful to those who receive it, on account of Thine ineffable goodness. Glory to Thee, who hast given us to be, and hast graciously granted us well-being, and having fallen away from this, hast brought us back to it, through Thy

ineffable condescension.

Chapter V. To those who ask: Is the person of Christ created or uncreated?

^A Christ, by speaking of two hypostases, or to deny the distinction of the natures. And...

[The translation of the beginning of the page continues:]

...well-being has been achieved for the whole world by the resurrection of Christ. The men whom the demons once held bound in slavery now strike terror into them; and, what is most wonderful, all this has been brought to pass through the cross, the torments, and death. The Gospel, through which the knowledge of God has been revealed, has been proclaimed throughout the whole world, not by casting down adversaries with war, arms, and armies; but rather a few men, naked, poor, and unlettered, afflicted with persecutions and scourgings, and delivered over to death, by preaching Him who had been nailed to the cross and had died, overcame the learned and the powerful. For the omnipotent strength and power of the Crucified was present with them. Indeed, death itself, which formerly inspired the greatest terror, has been overthrown; and that which was once an object of hatred and horror is now considered better than life. These are the illustrious deeds of Christ’s advent; these are the clear evidences of His power. For He did not, as He did through Moses, deliver one people from Egypt and the servile yoke of Pharaoh by dividing the waves of the sea, ^B but rather He delivered the whole human race from the destruction of death and from the bitter tyranny of sin. He did not drive men to virtue by force, nor by burying them in the earth, nor by burning them with fire, nor by commanding that sinners be stoned, but by gentleness and long-suffering He persuaded men to choose virtue and to contend and delight in the labors undertaken for its sake. For formerly, when they sinned, they were punished, yet they still clung tenaciously to sin, which they held as a god. But now, on the contrary, for the sake of piety and virtue, they embrace scourgings, torments, and death.

Well done, O Christ, Word of God, and Wisdom, and Power, and almighty God! What can we, who are poor and destitute, offer Thee in return for all these things? For all things are Thine. Indeed, Thou dost demand nothing from us except our own salvation; and though Thou Thyself art the bestower of this, in Thine ineffable goodness Thou art nevertheless grateful to those who attain it. Thanks be to Thee, who hast granted us both to be and well-being, and when we had fallen from this, by Thine ineffable condescension and indulgence, Thou didst lead us back to it.

CHAPTER V.

To those who ask: Is the person of Christ created or uncreated?

The person of the Word of God ^C was, before the assumption of the flesh, simple, and uncompounded, and incorporeal, and uncreated; but having become incarnate, It became also the person of the flesh, and became composite from the divinity, which He always possessed, and from the flesh which He assumed. And He bears the properties of the two natures, being made known in two natures; so that the one same person is uncreated in His divinity, and created in His humanity, visible and invisible; since we are forced, either to divide the one

same Christ, by asserting two persons, or, by denying the distinction of the natures, to introduce conversion or confusion. ^A

CHAPTER VI.

Not, as some falsely preach, was the mind united to God the Word before the flesh was assumed from the Virgin, and then for the first time called Christ. For this fabrication is reckoned among the ravings of Origen, who taught that souls are older than bodies. But we say that the Son and Word of God became Christ from the time when He dwelt in the womb of the holy ever-Virgin and became flesh without any change, and the flesh was anointed with the divinity. For this anointing is of the humanity, as Gregory the Theologian says. ^B And the most holy prelate of the Alexandrians, Cyril, writing to the Emperor Theodosius, expressed it thus: “For I indeed say that neither the Word from God without humanity, nor again the temple that was born from a woman, if it is not united to the Word, should be called Jesus Christ. For the Word from God, having been ineffably joined to humanity according to the economic union, is understood as Christ.” And to the empresses he writes thus: “Some say that the name Christ is appropriate to the Word alone, considered and existing individually in Himself, as He is begotten of God the Father. But we have not been taught to think or speak in this way. For when the Word became flesh, then we say He was also named Christ Jesus. ^C For because He has been anointed with the oil of gladness, that is, with the Spirit, by God and the Father, to that extent He is called Christ. And that the anointing is upon the humanity, no one with a mind for the truth would doubt.” And Athanasius also, the most renowned, in his discourse on the saving manifestation, speaks thus: “The pre-existing God, before His sojourn in the flesh, was not man, but He was God with God, invisible and impassible.” ^D

^A Since however He became man, the name Christ is applied to Him by reason of the flesh, since passion and death follow upon this name.

But if the divine Scripture also says: “Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness,” we must know that the divine Scripture often uses the past tense instead of the future, as in the passage: “Afterward he appeared on earth, and conversed with men.” For God had not yet appeared, nor had He conversed with men, when these things were said. And that passage: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.” For these things had not yet happened.

CHAP. VII.

The Severian objection is resolved. The first thing created by God is ungenerated [ingenitum], that is, not born of others. To be begotten [gigni] is of the person, not of the nature. The term written with a single nu [ἀγένητον] relates to the natures and signifies the uncreated and the created; but the term written with two nus [ἀγέννητον and γεννητόν] applies not to the natures, but to the persons—that is, to being begotten and not being begotten—which is denoted by the two letters. The divine nature, therefore, is ungenerated [ἀγένητος], that is, uncreated, and all things after the divine nature are generated [γενητά], that is, created. Therefore, in the divine ^C and uncreated nature, the property of being unbegotten [ἀγέννητον] is observed in the Father (for He was not begotten), while generation is observed in the Son (since He was eternally begotten of the Father), and procession in the Holy Spirit. In any species of living creatures, the first ones produced are indeed ungenerated [ingenita], but not ungenerated [ἀγένητα], that is, not uncreated. For they were created by the supreme Maker, but they were not born of like beings. For creation is a making, but generation, in the case of God, is the proceeding of the co-essential Son from the Father alone; and in the case of bodies, it is the proceeding of a co-essential person from the union of male and female. Whence we know that being begotten belongs not to the nature, but to the person. For if it belonged to the nature, the begotten ^D and the unbegotten would not be observed in one and the same nature. Therefore, the holy Theotokos gave birth to a person, recognized in two natures: in divinity, begotten of the Father timelessly; but in the last days, in time, become flesh from her, and born in the flesh.

Christ, in two natures. He suffered in that nature which was passible. ^A But if our questioners wish to suggest that he who is born from the holy Theotokos is two natures, we say: Yes, he is two natures. For the same one is both God and man. The same applies to the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. For these are not of the nature, but of the hypostasis. Christ, therefore, being in two natures, suffered in the passible nature—he was crucified in the flesh—for it was in the flesh that he hung on the cross, and not in his divinity. But if they answer us in turn when we ask: Did two natures die? Surely not, they will say. Therefore, neither were two natures crucified. But Christ was born, that is, the divine Word having become man, was born in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, suffered in the flesh, and died in the flesh, while his divinity remained impassible. ^B

CAP. VIII. How the only-begotten Son of God is called Firstborn.

He is firstborn who is first begotten, whether he be only-begotten, or also older than other brothers. Therefore, if the Son of God were called firstborn but not called only-begotten, we might have suspected that he was the firstborn of creatures, as one existing as a creature. But since he is called both firstborn and only-begotten, it is necessary to preserve both in him. We call him firstborn of all creation because he is from God, ^C and creation is from God; but he is from the substance of God and the Father, alone begotten timelessly, and so he will rightly be called only-begotten Son and firstborn, and not first-created. For creation was not brought forth from the substance of the Father, but by his will from nothingness into being. But he is firstborn "among many brothers," since, while being only-begotten, he also became, from his mother, since he partook of blood and flesh ^D in like manner to us, and became man; and we also have become

^A sons of God, being adopted through baptism; He, the Son of God by nature, has become the first-born among us who have become sons of God by position and grace, and have been named his brothers. Hence he said: "I ascend to my Father and your Father" [John xx, 17]. He did not say, "our Father," but "my Father," clearly by nature, and "your Father," by grace. And, "my God, and your God." And he did not say, "our God," but "my God"; if you distinguish with subtle distinctions that which is visible from that which is understood by the mind, and "your God," as Creator and Lord.^B

Concerning faith and baptism.

We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and for eternal life. For baptism signifies the death of the Lord. We are, therefore, buried with the Lord through baptism, as the divine Apostle says [Rom. vi, 4; Col. ii, 12]. As, therefore, the death of the Lord was accomplished once, so also must we be baptized once; and we must be baptized according to the Word of the Lord, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, being taught the confession in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Whoever, therefore, into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have been baptized, ^C let them be recognized as being baptized in Christ.

[alt-version omitted]

[note: entries preserved]

^A And those who, having been baptized in the Holy Spirit and having been taught the one nature of the Godhead in three persons, are nevertheless rebaptized, these crucify Christ again, as the divine Apostle says: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened," and the rest, "to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put him to an open shame" (Hebr. VI, 4, 6). But those who have not been baptized into the Holy Trinity, these ought to be rebaptized. ^B For even if the divine Apostle says that "we have been baptized into Christ and into his death" (Rom. VI, 3), he does not say that the invocation of baptism ought to be done in this way, but that baptism is a figure of the death of Christ. For by the three (68) immersions, baptism signifies the three days of the burial of the Lord. Therefore, to be baptized into Christ signifies being baptized while believing in him. But it is impossible to believe in Christ without having been taught the confession into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For Christ is the Son of the living God, whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit, as the divine David says: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions" (Ps. XLIV, 8). And Isaiah, speaking in the person of the Lord: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me" (Isa. LXI, 1). ^C The Lord, however, teaching his own disciples the invocation, said: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matth. XXVIII, 19). For since God made us for immortality, but we transgressed his saving commandment and he condemned us to the corruption of death—so that evil might not be immortal—he descended to his servants, as he is compassionate, and having become what we are, he redeemed us from corruption through his own passion; he caused a fountain of remission to spring up for us from his holy and immaculate side.

water, that is, for regeneration, and for the washing away of sin and corruption; and blood, for a drink that would procure eternal life. Furthermore, he commanded us to be regenerated by water and the Spirit ^A, the Holy Spirit drawing near to the water through the word and prayer. For since man consists of a twofold nature, namely of soul and body, he gave us a twofold purification, by water and the Spirit: namely, so that the Spirit might restore in us the beauty and likeness of the divine image, while the water, through the grace of the Spirit, cleanses the body from sin and renders it free from corruption, the water indeed expressing the likeness of death, but the Spirit bestowing the guarantee and pledge of life.

For from the beginning the Spirit of God hovered over the waters, and of old Scripture bears witness to the water, that it is a purifying agent. In the days of Noah, God washed away the sin of the world by water. By water, every unclean person is cleansed according to the law, and even the garments themselves must be washed with water. Elijah showed the grace of the Spirit mixed with the water, when he burned the holocaust by applying water. And almost everything is cleansed by water according to the law; for visible things are symbols of those that are perceived by the mind. Yet regeneration takes place in the soul: for faith knows how to adopt as sons—though we are but creatures—through the Spirit, and to lead us back to our ancient blessedness. ^B

Baptismal grace according to the faith and purification of those who receive it.

We must, however, with all our might take care to keep ourselves pure from filthy works, so that we do not, like a dog returning to its own vomit, make ourselves slaves of sin again. For faith without works is dead, and likewise works without faith. For true faith is proven through works. ^C

Why we are baptized into the Trinity.

^A the three hypostases should be present with one another; for the Holy Trinity is one in inseparable.

Various Baptisms

The first baptism is that of the flood, for the cutting off of sin. The second is that through the sea and the cloud; for the cloud was a symbol of the Spirit, and the sea of the water. The third is the legal baptism; for every one who was unclean was washed with water, and washed his garments, and thus entered into the camp. The fourth is that of John, which was introductory, leading those who were baptized to repentance, that they might believe in Christ. For, he says, "I indeed baptize you with water; but he who comes after me, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." John, therefore, purges by water in preparation for the Spirit. The fifth is the baptism of the Lord, by which he himself was baptized. He was baptized, not as though he himself were in need of cleansing, but to make my cleansing his own, that he might crush the heads of the dragons upon the water, that he might wash away sin, and bury the whole of the old Adam in the water, that he might sanctify the baptizer, that he might fulfill the law, that he might reveal the mystery of the Trinity, and that he might become a type and example to us for being baptized. We, too, are baptized with the perfect baptism of the Lord, by water and the Spirit. And Christ is said to baptize with fire because he poured out the grace of the Spirit upon the holy Apostles in the form of fiery tongues, as the Lord himself said, that "John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire, not many days from now"; or else because of the chastising baptism of the fire that is to come. The sixth is that of repentance and tears, which is truly laborious. The seventh is that by blood and martyrdom, with which Christ himself was baptized for our sake, as being highly reverend and blessed, and which is not defiled by subsequent pollutions. The eighth is the final one, which does not save, but which ^{B C}

^A destroys malice and sin, for they no longer have place; but it punishes and torments without end.

The Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, like a dove, demonstrating the first-fruits ^B of our baptism and honoring the body; since this body too, that is, the body, was God through deification, and at the same time, from of old, the dove has been accustomed to announce the cessation of the flood. He descends upon the holy apostles in the form of fire; for He is God, and God is a consuming fire.

Oil is taken for baptism, signifying our anointing and making us christs, and promising us the mercy of God through the Holy Spirit; since the dove also brought an olive twig to those who had been saved from the flood.

John was baptized by laying his hand upon the divine head of the Master, and by his own blood.

One must not delay ^C baptism when the faith of those approaching is attested by their works; for he who approaches baptism with guile will be condemned rather than benefited.

CAPUT X. On Faith.

Faith is indeed twofold; for there is faith that comes from hearing. For hearing the divine Scriptures, we believe... ^D

which is perfected by all the things ordained by Christ, believing in deed, living piously, and performing the commandments of Him who has renewed us. For whoever does not believe according to the tradition of the Catholic Church, or communicates with the devil through shameful deeds, is an unbeliever.

Faith is a gift of the Spirit. Once again: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen; ^B or it is an expectation that is in no way doubtful or ambiguous, by which we trust that what has been promised to us by God, and what we ask for, we shall obtain. The former, then, pertains to our own will; the latter is to be reckoned among the gifts of the Spirit.

Spiritual circumcision. It must be known that through baptism we are circumcised of all the covering we contracted from birth—that is, sin—and we become spiritual Israelites and the people of God.

CAPUT XI. On the Cross, where there is again discussion of faith.

The word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For the spiritual man judges all things, but the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit. For it is foolishness to those who do not receive them by faith, and who do not consider the goodness and omnipotence of God, but investigate divine things by human and natural logic. ^C For all things of God are above nature, and reason, and understanding. For if anyone ponders how and for what reason God brought all things out of nothing into being, and desires to attain it by natural logic, he does not comprehend it. For such knowledge is natural and demonic. But if anyone, led as if by the hand by faith, considers the divine to be good, and omnipotent, and true, and wise, and just, he will find all things smooth and even, and the way straight. For without faith it is impossible to be saved; for by faith all things, both human and spiritual, subsist. For neither does the farmer, ^D without faith, cut a furrow in the earth; nor does the merchant, carried on a small piece of wood, entrust his soul to the raging waves of the sea; nor are marriages contracted, nor is anything else in life undertaken. By faith we understand that all things were brought out of nothing into being by the power of God; by faith we manage all things rightly, both human and divine. Faith, furthermore, is an assent free from all curious inquiry.

There is nothing in the things of Christ more wonderful than the cross. Its benefits. Although every action of Christ and the performance of miracles is illustrious, divine, and wonderful, yet there is nothing among them all that is more worthy of admiration than His honorable cross. For by nothing else is death been abolished, the

Hades despoiled, the resurrection bestowed, power given to us to despise the present and even death itself, the return to ancient blessedness prepared, the gates of paradise opened, our nature seated at the right hand of God, and we made children of God and heirs, except by the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. For by the cross all things have been set right. For as many of us as have been baptized into Christ, says the Apostle, have been baptized into His death; and as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ^B Now Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. Behold, the death of Christ—that is, the cross—has clothed us with the subsistent wisdom and power of God. And the word of the cross is called the power of God, either because the power and might of God, that is, the victory over death, has been made manifest to us through it; or because, just as the four extremities of the cross are held and bound together through the central point, so through the power of God height and depth, length and breadth—that is, the whole of visible and invisible creation—is held together.

This sign is given to us on the forehead, just as circumcision was to Israel; for by it we believers are separated from the unbelievers and are recognized. This is a shield and an armor and a trophy against the devil. This is a seal, so that the destroyer may not touch us, as the Scripture says. This is the resurrection of those who have fallen, the support of those who stand, the staff of the weak, the rod of the pasture, the hand-leading of those who turn, the perfection of those who progress, the salvation of soul and body, the averter of all evils, the procurer of all goods, the destruction of sin, the plant of the resurrection, the tree of eternal life. ^C

As for the precious wood itself, truly and to be venerated, upon which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us—as it has been hallowed by the touch of His holy body and blood—it is to be worshipped; likewise the nails, the spear, the garments, and those holy dwellings of His, which are the

Adoration of the wood of the cross, and of others which Christ hallowed by His touch.

^A Since it was sanctified by the touch of His most holy body and blood, it is rightfully to be adored; and likewise the nails, the lance, the garments, and His sacred habitations—that is to say, the manger, the cave, the saving Golgotha, the life-giving sepulchre, Sion, the citadel of the Churches, and the like, even as the God-bearing David said: *We will go into his tabernacles: we will adore in the place where his feet stood* (Ps. cxxxi, 7). That he means the Cross, the following words declare: *Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place* (ibid. 8). For following the Cross comes the resurrection. If then the house, the bed, and the clothing of those we love are dear to us, how much more so are those things which belong to God and our Saviour, through which we have gained our salvation!

^B Adoration of the figure of the Cross as the sign of Christ. The matter of the Cross is not to be adored. Moreover, we adore the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, even if it be made of some other material; not by worshipping the material (God forbid), but by worshipping the figure as a symbol of Christ. For He said to His own disciples, instructing them: *Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven* (Matt. xxiv, 30), meaning the Cross. Hence also the angel of the resurrection said to the women: *You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified* (Mark xvi, 6). And the Apostle says: *But we preach Christ crucified* (I Cor. 1, 23). There are indeed many Christs and Jesuses, but only one who was crucified. He did not say "pierced with a lance," but "crucified." Therefore the sign of the Cross is to be adored by us; for where the sign shall be, there also shall He Himself be. But the material of which the figure of the Cross consists—even if it were of gold or precious stones—is not to be adored after the destruction of the figure, if such were to happen. We adore, therefore, all things dedicated to God, referring the worship to Him.

^C The wood of life as the figure of the Cross. The wood of life, which was planted by God in paradise, bore the figure of the venerable Cross. For since through wood death had entered, it was fitting that through wood life and resurrection should be restored. Jacob, the first to adore the top of Joseph's rod (Gen. xlvii, 31), typified the Cross; and by blessing his sons with crossed hands (Gen. xlviii, 14), he very clearly delineated the sign of the Cross.

indicative of the future, ^A striking the sea in the likeness of the cross, and saving Israel, while drowning Pharaoh; hands stretched out in the form of a cross, and putting the Amalekites to flight; the bitter water made sweet by wood; the rock broken open and pouring forth streams; the rod confirming Aaron's dignity of the priesthood; the serpent raised on the wood as a trophy, as though dead, while the wood saved those who saw the living enemy, signifying those who believe, as Christ in the flesh, without knowing sin, was fastened to the wood. Great Moses cries out: "You shall see your life hanging on a wood before your eyes"; Isaiah likewise: "All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." May we, who worship this cross, obtain the portion of Christ who was crucified. Amen.

CAP. XII. On worshiping toward the East.

We do not worship toward the East simply or by chance. ^B For since we are composed of a visible and invisible nature, that is, of spiritual and sensible nature, we offer a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing with both our mind and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are doubly united to the Lord, by participating in the sacraments and receiving the grace of the Spirit.

Since, therefore, ^C God is spiritual light, and Christ is called in the Holy Scriptures the "Sun of Righteousness" and the "Orient," that quarter must be assigned to Him for worship. For it is fitting that everything good should be consecrated to God, from whom every good thing is derived. And the divine David also says: "Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth; sing praises to the Lord, who ascends above the heaven of heavens toward the East." And furthermore, the

^A Scripture says: "God planted a garden in Eden toward the East; in which He placed the man whom He had formed; and when he had transgressed the commandment, He cast him out, and caused him to dwell opposite the garden of delight," that is to say, toward the West. Therefore, yearning for our ancient fatherland, and gazing toward it, we worship God. ^B And the Mosaic tabernacle also had the veil and the mercy seat toward the East. And the tribe of Judah, as the most honorable, encamped toward the East. And in the celebrated temple of Solomon, the gate of the Lord was situated toward the East. Furthermore, the Lord, while hanging on the cross, looked toward the West, and for this reason we worship, directing our eyes toward Him. And when He was being taken up into heaven, He was carried toward the East, and in this manner the apostles worshiped Him, and in this manner He will come again, in the same way as they saw Him going into heaven; as the Lord Himself said: "As the lightning comes forth from the East, and is seen even to the West, so will also be the coming of the Son of Man." ^C Expecting His coming, therefore, we worship toward the East. This tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For they handed down many things to us without writing.

CAP. XIII. Of the holy and immaculate mysteries of the Lord.

The economy of human salvation. — God, Who is good, and more than good, and supremely good, Who is goodness itself, because of the exceeding riches of His goodness, did not endure that He alone should be good, or that His nature, of which no thing could partake, should remain so; but for this reason He first created the intelligent and heavenly powers; then this visible and sensible world; ^D and finally, from both intelligent and sensible substance, man. And indeed all things that He created, insofar as they are, partake of His goodness, since He Himself is the being of all things, because in Him are all things. And this is not only because He brought them into being out of nothing, but also because His action protects and preserves the things created by Him; but living things more abundantly. For [they share] in being, and in the participation of life, they partake of the good.

^A Since rational beings—although according to what was said before, yet still more according to the rational element—are more closely related to Him, they enjoy the participation of the good more copiously; for they are joined to Him by a certain closer necessity, although He otherwise transcends all things by an incomparable sublimity.

However, man, having been made rational and master of his own actions, received the power ^B to be joined to God incessantly through his own free choice, if indeed he remained in the good—that is, in obedience to the Creator. Since, therefore, he fell into the transgression of the commandment of Him who created him, and became subject to death and corruption, the Maker and Creator of our race, because of the bowels of His mercy, became like to us, becoming man in all things without sin, and was united to our nature. For since He bestowed upon us His own image and His own Spirit, and we did not preserve them, He Himself partook of our poor and weak nature, in order that He might cleanse us, and make us incorruptible, and make us partakers of His divinity again.

It was necessary that not only the firstfruits of our nature should share in the better nature, but also every man who wishes so, and should be born a second birth, and be nourished with a strange food, and one suitable for that birth, and thus reach the measure of perfection. Therefore, by His own birth, that is, the incarnation, and the baptism, and the passion, and the resurrection, He delivered our nature from the sin of the first ancestor, from death, and from corruption, and became the firstfruits of the resurrection, and set Himself as a way, a pattern, and an example, so that we too, following in His footsteps, might become by adoption what He is by nature: sons and heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Him. ^C He gave us, then, as I said, a second birth, so that just as we, having been born from Adam, were made like to him, having inherited the curse and corruption, so also, having been born from Him, we might be made like to Him, and inherit His incorruption, and blessing, and glory.

But since this Adam is spiritual, it was necessary that the birth should be spiritual, and likewise the food. But since we are twofold and composite, it was necessary that the birth should also be twofold, and likewise the food of a composite nature. The birth, then, is given to us through water and the Spirit—I mean the holy baptism—and the food is the bread of life itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven. For, being about to undergo ^D His voluntary passion for us...

^A us, on the night in which He delivered Himself up, He established a new testament for His holy disciples and apostles, and through them for all who believe in Him. Therefore, in the upper room of holy and glorious Sion, having eaten the ancient 78 Pasch with His disciples, and having fulfilled the old testament, He washed the disciples' feet, providing a symbol of holy baptism. Then, having broken bread, He distributed it to them, saying: "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins." In like manner also, having taken the cup of wine and water, He shared it among them, saying: "Drink from it, all of you; this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for you for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Son of Man and confess His resurrection, until He comes.

The truth of the Eucharist is asserted. The power of the Lord's words in the Eucharist. The virtue of the Holy Spirit, by which bread becomes the flesh of Christ.

If, therefore, the Word of God is living and active, and the Lord has done all that He willed; if He said, "Let there be light," and there was; "Let there be a firmament," and there was; if by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their host; if heaven and earth, ^C and water and fire and air, and the entire cosmos of them were perfected by the word of the Lord; and likewise this most noble animal which is called man; if, finally, God the Word Himself, in accordance with His will, became man, and from the most pure and undefiled blood of the holy Ever-Virgin fashioned for Himself flesh without seed, why should He not be able to make the bread His body, and the wine and the water His blood? In the beginning He said: "Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass," and even to this day, when the rain comes, it brings forth its own fruits, impelled and strengthened by the divine command. God said: "This is My body," and "This is My blood," and "Do this in remembrance of Me." And by His omnipotent command, it happens until He comes; ^D for so He said, "until He comes"; and it becomes the rain 79 by His omnipotent command, even until He comes; and it becomes [alt-version omitted].

new produce, through the invocation, as the rain 269 supervening; the power of the Holy Spirit, of course, overshadowing. For just as whatever God made, He made by the operation of the Holy Spirit, so also now the operation of the Spirit works the things that are above nature, which none can grasp save faith alone. "How shall this be," says the holy Virgin, "since I know not a man?" ^B The archangel Gabriel answers: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you." Now you also ask how the bread becomes Christ’s body, and the wine and water, Christ’s blood. And I say to you: The Holy Spirit descends and works these things which are beyond reason and thought.

Bread and wine are taken; for God knows human infirmity; for as a rule, most people turn away from what is not worn by custom; therefore, using His habitual condescension, through the things familiar to nature He performs the things above nature. And just as in baptism, since it is the custom for men to wash with water and be anointed with oil, He joined the grace of the Spirit to the oil and water, and made it a laver of regeneration; so, since it is a custom for men ^C to eat bread and drink wine, He has joined to these His divinity, and has made them His body and blood, so that through the things which are used to our nature, we might be brought to the things that are above nature.

NOTE

There are six hundred testimonies of the ancients by which the same is built up. Theodorus Abucaras, or even Samonas of Gaza in his *Dialogue with Achmed the Mohammedan*, Theodorus Graptus, Nicephorus of Constantinople, and others whom I omit, also join in. They are speaking, of course, of that invocation which is recited in the ancient liturgies of all the Orientals after Christ's words, "This is my body," "This is my blood," etc. The Gothic liturgies, which the renowned men Thomasius and Mabillon published, agree with them. ^D Nay, that the Africans also requested in the same prayer that the Holy Spirit be sent to sanctify the gifts, Fulgentius is witness, book 2, *Ad Monim.*, chap. 6 and following. Furthermore, when Damascene saw that the invocation in the liturgies followed the words of Christ, and that the Fathers taught that the consecration is completed by them, and that Chrysostom otherwise, in his homily *On the Betrayal of Judas*, had said the gifts are sanctified by the Lord's words, he taught that the mystery is completed by both the words of Christ and the invocation. And Nyssen had already preceded him in his *Catechism*, saying, "Bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer." Thus the more recent Greeks, with Mark of Ephesus as witness, think that Christ's words are recited in the liturgies to recall us to the memory of the things done; but that beyond this, they infuse power into the presented gifts toward the conversion which later occurs through the prayer and benediction of the priest. The reply of the archbishops of the Russians in the Council of Florence, which Pope Eugenius approved, tended in the same direction. Combefis, in the margin of the homily of Damascene *On Holy Saturday*, regarding these words, "truly changed by the invocation," says: "This Pantinus is too harsh upon the author." I would prefer to explain it benignly, as also with the liturgies of Basil and the other Greeks, namely that the transmutation does not occur without the invocation, which either precedes (as with the Latins) or follows (as with the Greeks) the words of the Lord: in which, however, the power itself is present, the same thing always working for us as was once spoken by Christ: but yet so religiously, and for the majesty of such a great mystery. Nor has it perhaps been allowed by the Lord to celebrate the Eucharist such that any priest whatever may rashly, without any religious rite or order, chatter the Lord's words, and not so much perform a sacred thing as a histrionic and execrable act. This is not a benign, but a most true exposition of the text of Damascene. Bessarion and Arcudius suggest another view, that the Greek priests, while they pray that the Holy Spirit by His power may make the bread the body of Christ, are only requesting that those who receive the Eucharist may be one body of Christ, and that by these words "transmuting by the Holy Spirit," a metaphorical mutation is meant. But if that be granted, I fear that the places of the Fathers, by which bread and wine are said with equal right to be [changed], may be twisted against the sense of the authors.

^A His divinity and made them his body and blood, so that through things habitual and according to nature, we might become those things which are above nature. ^B It is truly a body united to the divinity, which originated from the holy Virgin, not that the body assumed comes down from heaven, but that the bread itself and the wine ^C are converted into the body and blood of God. If you inquire after the manner, how it happens...

NOTES

(80) *Water and wine.* That it is the apostolic tradition that wine tempered with water—not plain water, as the Encratites, nor wine alone, as some Armenians and Jacobites—ought to be offered, is shown by the ancient liturgies: that of James, or the Jerusalem liturgy, and Mark’s, or the Alexandrian, which the Copts also recite. The mixing of wine and water is mentioned by Basil […]; by Clement, in book VIII of the *Constitutions*; and likewise the cup of wine and water. Justin Martyr, in his *First Apology*, records that wine with water is offered; Irenaeus, in book V, ch. 2, says the cup of the Eucharist is a mixed cup. Anselm of Havelberg is not to be heard, who in *Dialogues* 3 narrates that the Greeks offer wine unmixed with any water, and that Nechites, or Nicetas of Nicomedia, answered him thus: "It is not read that Christ in that great supper of his consecrated wine mixed with water, and therefore we do the same." Others have falsely attributed this to the Greeks, perhaps because of the hot water which they pour into the cup after consecration, as if they did not mix any in before. The liturgies sufficiently refute these lies.

(81) *But this bread itself.* Now our author, here and in his *Homily on the Holy Sabbath* after Nyssen, names the conversion of bread and wine into the body of Christ. Chrysostom, and Nyssen again, Cyril of Jerusalem, Abucaras, Samonas, Graptus, and others [use the term] *metabole*, by which conversion, transmutation, and transelementation are signified. Theophylact uses these individual words in ch. 26 of Matthew and ch. 14 of Mark. Among later writers, *metabole* (conversion) is more commonly used. Our author here briefly reports what Nyssen discusses in his *Catechetical Oration*, ch. 37, in roughly these words: "As every human body is nourished by food and drink, and bread is food and water with wine is drink, hence it comes about that bread is in power the human body; and since God the Word permitted his body to be nourished by food and drink, the bread he ate was in a certain sense the body of God, since the nourishment passed into the nature of the body. Now, I am persuaded with certain faith that the bread consecrated by the Word of God is transmuted into the body of the Word of God. For it was in power that very body; there the grace of the Word made the body, which was sustained by bread, a holy body, and it was in a certain respect bread. Here also the bread, as the Apostle said, is sanctified by the word and by prayer; not that it passes into the body of the Word by eating and drinking, but that it is immediately transmuted into the body through the Word, as it was said by the Word, 'This is my body.'" He concludes that Christ bestows these things by the power of benediction, the nature of those things which appear being transelemented.

The most learned John Ernest Grabe, a man to be highly esteemed by me on many accounts, in his annotations on book V of Irenaeus, thus sets forth the sense of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (whose similar places I omit because they are worn) and of Nyssen, Damascene, and perhaps many others: "They were persuaded that the Holy Spirit, descending from heaven, did not only communicate to the bread the virtue of Christ’s body, and thus change it in respect of its qualities, but by divine power transformed its very substance into flesh, which is Christ’s flesh, and becomes identical with that which came forth from the womb of the blessed Virgin and was fixed to the cross and taken up into heaven, and that it has the same Spirit of life in itself; just as the bread which the Savior ate on earth was turned into his flesh by the force of natural heat, and our daily bread passes into the substance of our body. This body, which is carried for us today, is said to be the same as that in which we lived many years ago, because it is vivified by the same soul, although its particles are entirely different, and perhaps none of the former ones remains." (Read, after Cyril’s *Mystagogic Catecheses*, the *Great Catechetical Oration* of Gregory Nyssen, ch. 37, and Damascene’s *De fide orthodoxa*, book IV, ch. 14, and his *Epistle to Zacharias, bishop of the Dauri*.)

He subjoins the places of Damascene, whose better interpreter—as well as that of other Greeks—I seek in vain. The Wirtemberg theologians, when they had read the *Response to Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople*, in chapter 10, that bread is transmuted into the very body of Christ and wine into his very blood, answered that in the dominical supper the body and blood of Christ are truly present; not, however, that bread is transmuted into Christ’s body. They knew, of course, that to the Greeks *metabole* signifies nothing else than the conversion of one substance into another. Hence our author, in his *Opusculum against the Acephali*, declares that the union of the natures of the Lord is not *metabole*, using the example of the body glowing with fire: "The glowing," he says, "does not signify the conversion of the thing which glows, but the union with the fire." Wherefore George Scholarius, who was an alternative schismatic patriarch, in his *Sermon on the Eve of Lazarus*, of which the most learned Abbot Renaudot very kindly gave me the opportunity to transcribe a large part from his authentic codex, after having asserted that such a *metousiosis* takes place, such that accidents remain while the subject is destroyed, adds that the manner of the incarnation is one thing, and the manner of the Eucharist is another.

^A It is not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are transmuted into the body and blood of God. If you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is by the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord, through the Holy Spirit, took flesh to himself and in himself from the holy Mother of God; and we know nothing more than this, except that the Word of God is true, and effective, and almighty, but the manner is unsearchable. It is not amiss to say also this, that just as naturally bread through eating, and wine and water through drinking, are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body than the one that previously existed, so the bread of the 82 oblation, the wine, and the water, through the invocation and the advent of the Holy Spirit, are supra-naturally changed into the body of Christ and his blood, and there are not two, 83 but one and the same.

^B ...[the] substance [of the bread] which existed before becomes the body of Christ, becoming Christ's body; it is the greatest of all divine miracles, as truly through the bread there is a change into the Lordly body, but not an impossible one for Him who has power over the divine... ^C ...[regarding] the beginning of the... This miracle, as I think, happened as a most clear sign of this great and supernatural mystery, that only the accidents of the bread perish, while the substance of the bread is changed, and by the all-holy Spirit is transubstantiated into the true body of Christ, and undergoes no corruption, but remains incorrupt, as the property of Christ. Thus [is the case] of the oblation. *Prothesis*, *thysis*, *pros*-... *phora*, falling down... all the faithful fall down to the priests. For even if it has not yet been consecrated, but in the *prothesis* they were dedicated to God, and the priest there offered a prayer, and said to receive these ^D at the altar above. For we are not idolaters by bowing down before the gifts, far from it; but we revere the gifts dedicated to God through the oblation, as if sanctified by the oblation.

83 *And there are not two, but one.* So in the epistle to Caesarius, which is attributed to Chrysostom. "For just as before the bread is sanctified, we call it bread, but when the divine grace sanctifies it through the mediator the priest, it is delivered indeed from the appellation of bread, but is considered worthy of the appellation of the Lordly body, even if the nature of bread has remained in it: and it is not called two bodies, but one body of the Son." From these later words, which our author borrowed from that epistle, it is sufficiently understood that by the name of nature, the substance of the bread is not signified, but the structure of the...

^A bread and its natural properties. For if the nature or substance properly so-called of the bread were to remain, then there would be two bodies, namely the bread and Christ, not one only. After Damascenus, Theodorus Graptus, or rather Nicephorus of Constantinople, spoke in the same way in his book *On the Inculpable Christian Faith*, or *Antirrhetica* II, chapter 3: "Just as bread, wine, and water are naturally converted into the body and blood of the one eating, so that we would by no means say that a body other than that which existed before is made from them: so also these, by a reason that transcends nature, through the invocation of the priest and the coming of the Holy Spirit, are converted into the body and blood of Christ, just as the priest petitions it to be done; and we believe them to be so, and we understand that they are not two, but that one and the same exists." Similarly in a letter to Zachariah the Doarian, and in a short homily (which I shall show in their own place are not John Damascene's), this is proved first: that it is one and the same body of Christ that was conceived of the Virgin, and is dead, and is that which we immolate at the altar, adding also the example of food which is turned into the body of an infant; so that although it grows, it does not become two bodies, but one, ^C and not two. When, by the accretion of the body of Christ, it is gathered into one body, and not two. Where by the accretion of the body of Christ, it is hinted that the body of Christ, although it does not increase any further in mass, yet with the bread and wine converted, it attains a certain excellent kind of growth, so that it remains one and the same for all and for each of the faithful, and is communicated without any division.

(84) *It is not a figure*. Neither is the bread and wine a figure of Christ’s body and blood, for in certain ancient fragments read in the *Catenae* on Matthew, which declare the same, the Eucharistic bread is not a figure of the Lord's body, but the body itself. It is a well-worn story which is found in book V of *The Lives of the Fathers*, booklet 18, and in the *Apophthegmata Patrum*, Vol. I, *Monum. Eccl. Græc.*, p. 241, where Abbot Daniel relates from Abbot Arsenius concerning an old monk who had fallen into this error, that the Eucharistic bread and wine were merely figures of the body and blood of the Lord. In the age of Damascenus, the books of Macarius Magnes *Against the Gentile Theosthenes* were very well known—which are preserved at Venice in the library of St. Mark, and from which Turrianus, in book V of *Clemens*, published these words: "The Eucharist is not a figure of the body and blood, as some with a dull mind have prattled, but body and blood." Coccius provided a more extensive Latin version of this passage in Vol. II, p. 607. Nicephorus discusses sufficiently ample fragments of Macarius Magnes in his *Antirrhetica*. Among the prelates who met in the synod at the Oak against Chrysostom, Photius relates that Macarius, bishop of Magnesia, was present, who stirred up a quarrel against Heraclides of Ephesus. St. Ignatius the martyr, in his epistle to the Smyrneans, says that the heretics of his day withdrew from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, those who contradict this gift of God, by disputing, perish. Indeed, just as, by the testimony of Irenæus, lib. III, c. 11, in none of the opinions of these heretics did the Word become flesh, so also in the Eucharist the true body and blood of Christ is not contained, but at most a simple figure. On the contrary, Cyril of Jerusalem, *Cat.* 4, says: "In the figure of bread," he says, "Christ offers his body, and in the figure of wine, likewise his blood, so that the naked species of bread and wine remain." But later he teaches that it must be held with firm faith that what seems to us to be bread, is not in reality bread, although it refers to the taste; but the body of Christ. And the wine which is seen by us, is not wine, even though it appears to be wine to the taste, but the blood of Christ. The Greeks offer the same meaning, who, in disputing about unleavened bread against the Latins, acknowledge that the bread, whether it be fermented or unleavened (*azyma*), after consecration is neither fermented nor unleavened. Thus John, patriarch of Jerusalem, as cited by Allatius, *Exerc. cont. Creygt.* Thus, in turn, Theorianus, in the same *Exerc.*, in an epistle to the priests and monks, argues on behalf of the Latins: "The divine bread, before it is consecrated, whether it be unleavened or fermented, is indifferently bread and is so called by the divine Scripture, as we shall show. But after it is consecrated, it is neither unleavened nor fermented, but the body and flesh of the Lord, the same and very thing itself, and not one thing instead of another. For it is one and the same that was taken from the incorrupt Virgin, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and is received by us the orthodox mystically. Whence it is called a mystery, as a secret which many do not perceive. If, therefore, the divine power changes the proposed gifts into the body and blood of Christ, it is vain to contend whether it is made from unleavened or fermented bread, or with white or red wine, and to agitate such foolish curiosities concerning the venerable mysteries." Theorianus wrote this under Manuel Comnenus, in the twelfth century.

^A of the body, but the body; and not a figure of the blood, but the blood. And before this, He had said to the Jews: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. And again: "He who eats Me, will live."

The rite of giving the Eucharist into the hands.

The figures of the Eucharist.

^A as the Lord said through the prophet, to be offered to Him from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same.

The fruit of the Eucharist.—It is the body and blood of Christ, which contributes to the strengthening of our soul and body; it is not consumed, nor is it corrupted, nor does it go into the draught (God forbid!), but it serves for our substance and conservation, a defense against every kind of hurt, and a cleanser of every impurity. If it finds gold that is adulterated, it purifies it by the trial of fiery judgment, so that we may not be condemned with the world in the future age. For it cleanses us from diseases and all manner of afflictions, as the divine Apostle says: "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with this world." And this is what he says: "So that whosoever partakes of the body and blood of the Lord unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." Being cleansed by Him, we are united with the body of the Lord and His Spirit, and we become the body of Christ.

The supersubstantial bread.—This bread is the first-fruits of the bread to come, which is the supersubstantial bread. For "supersubstantial" signifies either the one to come, that is, the bread of the age to come, or the bread which is taken for the preservation of our substance. Whether then taken one way or the other, it will be fittingly called the body of the Lord; for the flesh of the Lord is a vivifying Spirit, because it was conceived of the ^B vivifying Spirit: for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. I say this, not to do away with the nature of the body, but to declare its vivifying and divine power.

And if some call the Eucharist an antitype (87) of the body and blood of Christ, they said this—not that they meant it to be antitype of body and blood, as the God-bearing ^C... [Note: The text here resumes at the primary discourse] ...they referred to it as it were the bread and the wine, as the God-bearing Father said: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will not receive an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same, my name is glorified among the Gentiles: and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering." It cleanses us from diseases and all manner of afflictions. The flesh of the Savior, when eaten, is not corrupted, nor is the blood consumed when drunk; but he who eats is raised to the increase of divine virtues. That which is eaten is inexhaustible, since it is in some way kindred to the inexhaustible nature and inseparable from it, but is distributed to thy whole constitution for the benefit of body and soul.

^A They called the bread and wine antitypes of the body and blood of Christ, not — as the God-bearing Basil said — after they have been sanctified, but before they were sanctified, having thus named the offering itself.

It is called participation, because through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. It is also called communion and truly is so, because through it we communicate with Christ and share in both His flesh and divinity; and we communicate and are united with one another through it. For since we partake of one bread, we all become one body of Christ and one blood, and members of one another, being made fellow-members of Christ. ^B Therefore, let us guard with all our might against receiving communion from heretics, or giving it to them. For the Lord says: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before swine," that we may not become sharers in their impiety and their condemnation. For if there is indeed a unity with Christ and with one another, we are certainly united by intent with all who partake with us. For this is a union of intent, not without our own will. For we are all one body, because we partake of the one bread, as the divine Apostle says.

They are called antitypes of the things to come, not as though they are not truly the body and blood of Christ, but because now through them we partake of Christ’s divinity, while then ^C we shall partake of it intellectually, through vision alone.

Chapter XIV. On the lineage of the Lord, and on the holy Mother of God.

Since regarding the holy and sufficiently-beyond-praise ^D

and Theotokos Mary we have already moderately discoursed in what preceded, and demonstrated most essentially that she is and is called, properly and truly, Theotokos, let us now supply what is lacking. For she, having been foreordained by the eternal and foreknowing counsel of God, and having been prefigured and announced through various images and words of the prophets by the Holy Spirit, blossomed at the predetermined time from the root of David, in accordance with the promises made to him. For the Scripture says: "The Lord swore truth unto David, and He will not set it aside; of the fruit of thy body I will set upon thy throne" (Ps. CXXXI, 11). And again: "Once have I sworn by my holy one, if I shall lie unto David: his seed shall remain forever, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon made perfect forever, and the witness in heaven is faithful" (Ps. LXXXVIII, 5). And Isaiah: "A rod shall spring forth from Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from the root" (Isa. XI, 1).

That Joseph descended from the Davidic tribe, the most holy evangelists Matthew and Luke have clearly shown; but Matthew traces Joseph from David through Solomon, while Luke through Nathan. Both, however, passed over in silence the birth of the holy Virgin. One must therefore know that it was not the custom among the Hebrews, nor in the divine Scripture, for women to be included in genealogies. Moreover, it was ordained by law that one should not take a wife from another tribe; and therefore Joseph, who was descended from the Davidic lineage and was just (for the divine Gospel bestows this praise upon him), would by no means have taken the holy Virgin into betrothal contrary to the ordinance of the law, had he not descended from the same scepter or tribe. Having therefore shown the origin of Joseph, the evangelist was satisfied.

One must also know that it was ordained by law that if any man died without children, his brother should take the wife of the deceased in marriage and raise up seed for his brother (Deut. XXV, 5; Num. XXXVI, 6). Thus, the offspring was, by nature, of the second—that is, of him who had begotten him—but by law, it was considered to be of the deceased.

^D The order of Christ's lineage. Therefore, from the line of Nathan, the son of David, is born Levi. Levi begat Melchi and Panthar. ^D

^A Panthar begat Barpanthar (for so he was called). This Barpanthar begat Joachim; and Joachim begat the holy Theotokos. Again, from the line of Solomon, the son of David, Mathan took a wife, from whom he begat Jacob, the father of Joseph. But when Mathan was dead, Melchi, who was of the tribe of Nathan, the son of Levi and brother of Panthar, took the wife of Mathan, who was also the mother of Jacob, and from her he begat Heli. Therefore, Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers: Jacob, indeed, from the tribe of Solomon, and Heli from the tribe of Nathan. But Heli, who was of the tribe of Nathan, died childless; and his brother Jacob, who was of the tribe of Solomon, took his wife and raised up seed to his brother, and begat Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is by nature the son of Jacob, of the house of Solomon, but by law the son of Heli, who was of the line of Nathan.

Joachim, therefore, took to wife that venerable and praiseworthy woman, Anna. ^B But just as that ancient Anna, being barren, brought forth Samuel through prayer and promise, so this one also, through supplication and promise to God, receives the Theotokos, so that in this respect also she might fall short of none of the illustrious matrons. Grace, therefore (for this is what Anna is interpreted to mean), brings forth the Lady; for this is what the name Mary signifies, who truly became the Lady of all creation, having been made the Mother of the Creator. She is born ^C in the Probatica... ^D [index: entries preserved]

^A house of Joachim, and is brought to the temple. Then, planted in the house of God and nourished by the Spirit, like a fruit-bearing olive tree, she is prepared as a dwelling place for every virtue; so that, having withdrawn her mind from every desire of the world and of the flesh, she kept her soul, together with her body, virgin, as befitted her who was to receive God into her bosom, who, being holy Himself, rests among the holy 70. Thus, by pursuing holiness, she becomes a holy and wonderful temple, worthy of the hospitality of the most high God.

^B Since, however, the enemy of our salvation was watching the virgins, because of the prophecy of Isaiah who said: *Behold, a virgin shall be in the womb and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel* (which is translated *God with us* 71); therefore, that He who catches the wise in their craftiness 72 might deceive him who always boasts in the name of wisdom, the maiden is betrothed to Joseph by the priests—a new scroll for one who knows letters 73. This betrothal was both a protection for the Virgin and a deception for him who was watching the virgins. But when the fullness of time had come, an angel of the Lord was sent to her, to announce the conception of the Lord. Wherefore she conceived the Son of God, that true and subsistent power of the Father, not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of a man 74—that is, not by intercourse and seed—but by the benign will of the Father, with the Holy Spirit acting simultaneously. By this plan, she provided ^C for the Creator to be created, and for the Maker to be made, and for the Son of God and God to be incarnate and made man from her pure and undefiled flesh and blood, fulfilling the debt of the first mother. For just as that one was fashioned from Adam without intercourse, so also this one brought forth the new Adam, born according to the law of gestation, and yet above the nature of birth. For He is born without a father from a woman, He the One born from the Father without a mother. And in that he is from a woman, it is according to the law of gestation; but in that he is without a father, it is above the nature of generation. And in that he is born at the accustomed time—for he completed the nine months and entered into the tenth—it is according to the law of gestation; but in that it was without pain, it is above the rule of birth. For pleasure did not precede, nor did pain follow in the birth, according to the prophet who says: *Before she travailed, she brought forth* 75. And again: *Before the time of travail arrived, she escaped, and brought forth a man child* 76.

^D Therefore, the Son of God has been born from her incarnate, not a man bearing God, but God incarnate.

^A Not as a prophet anointed by the operation, but by the presence of the whole anointing body, so that the one who anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God, not by a change of nature, but by union according to hypostasis. For the same was both the anointer and the anointed: the anointer as God, himself as man. How then is she not Theotokos, who bore from herself God incarnate? Truly, properly, and genuinely she is Theotokos, and Lady, and rules over all creatures, having been made handmaid and mother of the Creator. Just as when conceived he kept her who conceived him a virgin, so also when born he kept her virginity inviolate, alone passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception was by hearing, but the birth was by the customary way of those being born, even if some fable that he was born through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for him both to pass through the door and not to damage its seals. ^B Therefore, she who is ever-virgin remains a virgin even after parturition, having in no way consorted with man until death. For even if it is written, "And he knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son," we must know that "first-born" is the one first born, even if he be only-begotten. For indeed, "first-born" signifies that he was born first, but it does not necessarily imply the birth of others. And "until" signifies the boundary of a set time, but it does not deny what happens afterwards. For the Lord says, "And behold, I am with you always, even unto ^C the end of the age," not as though he will depart after the end of the age. For the divine Apostle says, "And so shall we ever be with the Lord," speaking after the common resurrection.

For how could she who had borne God, and had known the miracle from the experience of what followed, have accepted the embrace of a man? Far be it! It would not be the mind of a chaste person even to think such things, much less to do them. But this blessed woman, having been deemed worthy of gifts beyond nature, endured in the time of the passion the pains she had escaped in childbearing; under the maternal sympathy of the bowels, she suffered the rending, and seeing him whom she knew to be God through birth being put to death as a criminal, she was rent in her thoughts as by a sword; and this is what is meant: "And a sword shall pierce through your own soul also." But the joy of the resurrection changes the sorrow, preaching him as God who had died in the flesh.

CAP. XV. Regarding the honor to be paid to the saints and their relics.

^A Saints are to be honored as friends of Christ, as children and heirs of God, as John the Theologian and Evangelist says: "But as many as received him, to them he gave power to become children of God." So they are no longer servants, but children; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. And the Lord in the holy Gospels says to the apostles: "You are my friends. I will no longer call you servants; for the servant does not know what his lord is doing." Furthermore, since the King of kings, and Lord of lords, and God of gods, is called the Creator of all things and Lord, it is surely necessary that the saints also be called gods, and lords, and kings. Their God is the God who is, and is called, both Lord and King. For "I am," He says to Moses, "the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And God made Moses a god to Pharaoh. I say "gods," and "kings," and "lords," not by nature, but because they have reigned over and mastered their passions, and have preserved uncorrupted the likeness of the divine image, ^B according to which they were created (for the image of the king is also called king); and as those who have been united to God by free choice, and who have received Him as a guest in their heart, and by grace have become that which He is by nature. How, then, should we not honor those who have been named servants, and friends, and sons of God? For the honor paid to our fellow-servants proves our good will toward the common Master.

These have become storehouses and clean dwellings of God, because the Lord says: "I will dwell in them, and walk among them, and I will be their God." That the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and that death shall not touch them, the divine Scripture says. ^C For the death of the saints is sleep rather than death. "For they labored in this age, and shall live to the end." And: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." For what is more precious than to be in the hand of God? For God is life and light, and those who are in the hand of God are in life and light.

That God has also dwelt by the mind and in their bodies, the Apostle testifies: "Do you not know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you?" And the Lord is the Spirit. And: "If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him." How, then, are we not to honor ^D the—

[...to be honored?] those who are the living temples of God, the living tabernacles of God? These stand before God with confidence.

The Master Christ has granted us the relics of the saints as saving fountains, ^A gushing forth benefits in many ways and pouring out fragrant ointment; and let no one be faithless. For if, by the will of God, water gushed forth in the desert from a steep and hard rock, and from an ass's jawbone for Samson when he was thirsty, is it unbelievable that fragrant ointment should gush forth from the relics of martyrs? Not at all, for those who know the power of God and the honor He bestows upon the saints.

In the ^B Law, everyone who touched a corpse was considered unclean, but these are not corpses. For since the time that He who is Life itself, the Author of life, was reckoned among the dead, we do not call those who have fallen asleep in the hope of resurrection and in faith into Him, dead. For how can a dead body perform miracles? How, then, through them are demons driven out, diseases banished, the sick healed, the blind restored to sight, lepers cleansed, temptations and sorrows dissolved, and every good gift from the Father of lights ^C descend through them to those who ask with unwavering faith? How much trouble would you go to, so that you might find a patron to lead you to a mortal king and speak to him on your behalf? Are these, then, the patrons of the whole human race, who offer prayers to God on our behalf, not to be honored? Indeed they must be honored, by raising temples to God in their name, by bringing offerings, by honoring their memories, and by rejoicing in them spiritually, so that the joy may be akin to those who invite us, lest, in trying to serve them, we offend and anger them instead. For God will be pleased, and His servants ^D will rejoice, by those things through which God is honored; but if God is displeased, His attendants will also be displeased. In the Psalms, and in the

Various Readings

and with spiritual songs, and with compunction, and with mercy for those in need, let us honor the saints, by whom God is especially honored. Let us raise up pillars to them, and visible images; and let us ourselves become living pillars and images of them, through the imitation of their virtues. Let us honor the Theotokos as truly and properly the Mother of God. Let us honor the prophet John as forerunner and baptist, apostle and martyr; for "among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist," as the Lord said, and he became the first herald of the Kingdom. Let us honor the apostles as brothers of the Lord, and eyewitnesses, and ministers of His sufferings, whom God the Father also foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, ^B—first apostles, second prophets, third pastors and teachers—and the martyrs of the Lord, chosen from every rank as soldiers of Christ, who have drunk His cup, having been baptized with the baptism of His life-giving death, as sharers of His passion and His glory; of whom the commander is the proto-deacon of Christ and apostle, and first martyr, Stephen; and our holy fathers, the God-bearing ascetics, who have wrestled through the longer and more painful martyrdom of conscience, who "wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, wandering in deserts, and mountains, and dens, and caves of the earth," of whom the world was not worthy. Let us honor those who were before grace—prophets, patriarchs, righteous men—who heralded the coming of the Lord. Looking upon the life of all these, let us imitate their faith, love, hope, zeal, life, perseverance in suffering, and patience even unto blood, so that we may also share with them in the crowns of glory.

CAP. XVI. Concerning the images of the saints.

^C Since some blame us for [our] adoration of the image of God in man. —

^A Let them hear that from the beginning God created man according to His own image. Why then do we adore one another, if not because we have been made according to the image of God? For as the God-inspired – and truly great in divine matters – Basil says, "the honor of the image passes to the prototype." The prototype is that which is portrayed, from which the derivative is made. Why did the Mosaic people adore the tabernacle round about, which bore the image and shadow of heavenly things, or rather of the whole of creation? For God says to Moses: "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain." And were the Cherubim that overshadowed the mercy seat not works of men's hands? And what of that famous temple in Jerusalem? Was it not handmade and constructed by the art of men? ^B Divine Scripture condemns those who adore sculptured images, but also those who sacrifice to demons. The Greeks sacrificed, and the Jews also sacrificed; but the Greeks [sacrificed] to demons, while the Jews [sacrificed] to God. And the sacrifice of the Greeks was rejected and condemned, while that of the righteous was acceptable to God. For Noah sacrificed, and God smelled the odor of sweetness, accepting the fragrance of his good purpose and of his goodwill toward Him. Thus, the sculptured images of the Greeks, because they were likenesses of demons, are rejected and forbidden.

Moreover, who can make a representation of the invisible, bodiless, uncircumscribed, and shapeless God? To do so is ^C extreme folly. ^D [alt-version omitted] [index: entries preserved]

^A and impiety, to attempt to give form to the Divine. Hence, in the Old Testament, the use of images was not common. But since God, through the bowels of His own mercy, has in truth become man for our salvation—appearing not as He appeared to Abraham in the likeness of a man, nor as to the prophets, but having become truly man in substance, having lived on earth and moved among men, having performed miracles, suffered, been crucified, risen, and been taken up—since all these things took place in truth and were seen by men, they were recorded for our remembrance ^B and for the instruction of those who were not present then, so that we, who have not seen but have heard and believed, may attain the blessedness of the Lord. And since not everyone knows letters nor has leisure for reading, the Fathers decided that these things should be recorded in images, as a kind of concise commentary ^C, to serve as a brief reminder. Indeed, often when we are not thinking of the Lord’s passion, by seeing the image of Christ’s crucifixion and coming to a remembrance of the saving passion, we fall down and worship—not the material, but the one who is depicted; just as we do not worship the material of the Gospel book, nor the material of the cross, but that which is impressed upon them. For what difference is there between a cross not having the impression of the Lord and one that does? In the same way, this applies to the Mother of God; ^D for the honor shown to her is referred back to the one who became incarnate from her. And similarly, the noble deeds of holy men incite us to courage, and zeal, and the imitation of their virtue, and to the glory of God. For as we said, the honor shown to one’s fellow servants is evidence of one’s goodwill toward our common Master, and the honor of the image passes on to the prototype. Moreover, it is unwritten [(94)]

^A that we worship facing the east, that we venerate the cross, and many other things similar to these.

There is also current a certain history, ^B how the Lord, when Abgar, who was king of the city of the Edessenes, sent a painter to paint a likeness of the Lord, and the painter was unable to do so because of the splendor and radiance that flashed from His face, the Lord Himself placed a garment to His own divine and life-giving face and impressed upon the garment a likeness of Himself, and thus sent it to Abgar, who desired it.

That the apostles also delivered many things in an unwritten manner, Paul, the apostle of the nations, writes: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter" (II Thess. 2, 15). And to the Corinthians ^C

he says: "I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions just as I delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11, 2).

CAP. XVII. Concerning Scripture

^A God is one, ^B both proclaimed by the Old and New Testament, and worshipped and glorified in the Trinity; as the Lord said: "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" (Matt. 5, 17). For He Himself wrought our salvation, for the sake of which all Scripture and every mystery have been revealed. And again: "Search the Scriptures, for they testify of me" (John 5, 39). And as the Apostle says: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to our fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son" (Heb. 1, 1). Therefore, by the Holy Spirit, the Law and the Prophets, the Evangelists, and Apostles, and pastors and teachers have spoken.

Every Scripture, therefore, is divinely inspired and is entirely useful (II Tim. 3, 16). ^B Therefore it is excellent and most beneficial for the salvation of souls to search the divine Scriptures. For as a tree planted by the streams of waters (Ps. 1, 3), so also is the soul, when irrigated by divine Scripture, made fat and brings forth mature fruit, that is, the orthodox faith, and is adorned with ever-verdant leaves, that is, with deeds acceptable to God; for we are regulated by the holy Scriptures both for virtuous action and for clear contemplation. For we find in them ^C an incitement to every virtue and a dissuasion from every vice. If, therefore, we are eager to learn, we shall also become learned; for by diligence, and labor, and the grace of God who gives, all things are achieved. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened (Luke 11, 10). Let us therefore knock at that most beautiful paradise of the Scriptures, that most fragrant, sweet, and elegant one, I say, which surrounds our ears with the various songs of spiritual and divine birds, which touches our heart, ^D and consoles it when it is sorrowful, calms it when it is angry, and fills it with eternal joy; which conveys our...

mind upon the golden-shining back of the dove ^A, borne upon her most brilliant wings to the only-begotten Son and heir of the husbandman of that intelligible vineyard, and leads it to the Father of lights ^B. But we must not knock perfunctorily; rather, we must do so eagerly and persistently, that we may not grow weary in our knocking. For in this way it will finally be opened to us. If we read once or twice and do not understand what we have read, let us not be discouraged, but persevere, meditate, and ask. For it says: *Ask your father, and he will tell you; your elders, and they will tell you* ^C. For knowledge is not for everyone. Let us draw from the fountain of Paradise streams that are perennial and most pure, leaping up into eternal life. Let us revel in this, and feast upon it insatiably; for the grace of the Scriptures is such that it can never be exhausted. Indeed, if we can glean anything useful from external authors, nothing prevents us from doing so, provided we are expert money-changers, gathering the true and pure gold, while rejecting what is counterfeit. Whatever is well and elegantly said, let us accept, so that we may cast away the ridiculous deities and absurd fables to the dogs; for from those very things we may be able to gain much strength against them.

The number of the books of the Old Testament.

It must be known ^D that there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament, as many as the letters of the Hebrew language. For the Hebrews have twenty-two letters, five of which are doubled, so that they become twenty-seven in total; for Kaph is doubled, and Mem, and Nun, and Pe, and Tsadi. Thus the books are, according to this manner, twenty-two in number...

yet twenty-seven are found, because five of them are doubled. For Ruth is joined to Judges, and is counted by the Hebrews as one book; the first and second of Kings is one book; the third and fourth of Kings is one book; the first and second of Chronicles is one book; the first and second of Ezra is one book. ^A Thus, the books are combined into four pentateuchs, and two others remain, so that the canonical books stand as follows: five legal books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This is the first pentateuch, which is also called the Law. Then another pentateuch, [which is] those called Writings, though by some Holy Scripture, which are as follows: Joshua son of Nun, Judges with Ruth, the first of Kings with the second as one book, the third with the fourth as one book, and the two books of Chronicles as one book. This is the second pentateuch. The third pentateuch is the books of verse: the book of Job, the Psalter, the Proverbs of Solomon, the Ecclesiastes of the same, the Song of Songs of the same. The fourth pentateuch is the ^B prophetic: the Twelve Prophets as one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; then the books of Ezra, joined into one book, and Esther. The Panaretus, that is to say, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, whom the father of Sirach published in Hebrew, and his grandson Jesus, son of Sirach, translated into Greek; these, although otherwise noble and excellent books, are nevertheless not counted, nor were they kept in the ark.

Libri Novi Testamenti. — Now the books of the New Testament are these: four Gospels, namely, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles by the evangelist Luke; seven Catholic Epistles: one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; the fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul; the Apocalypse of the evangelist John; and finally, the Canons of the holy apostles ^C through Clement. ^D

CAPUT XVIII. Regarding those things which are said concerning Christ.

The general modes of speaking about Christ are four: for some things are appropriate to Him even before the Incarnation, some are in the union, some after the union, and some after the resurrection. And of those things prior to the Incarnation, there are six modes. For some of them declare the conjunction of nature and the consubstantiality with the Father, as: ^A *I and the Father are one* (John X, 30), and: *He who has seen me has seen the Father* (John XIV, 9), and: *Who, existing in the form of God* (Phil. II, 6), and such like. Others indicate the perfection of the hypostasis, such as: *Son of God* (John I, 3), and: *The brightness of His glory and the express image of His person* (Heb. I, 3), and: *Angel of Great Counsel, wonderful, counsellor* (Isa. IX, 6), and the like.

Others indicate the circumincession of the hypostases in one another, as: *I am in the Father, and the Father in me* (John XIV, 10); and the ineffable and indissoluble indwelling, as the Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Radiance. For the Word—and by Word I mean the hypostatic Word—is in the mind, and Wisdom likewise, and Power in the mighty, ^B and the Radiance in the light, where they are fixed inerrantly, as flowing forth from them.

Others are expressed as if from a cause, the Father, as: *The Father is greater than I* (John XIV, 28). For from Him He has both His being and all that He has; His being, indeed, by generation and not by creation, as: *I came forth from the Father and have come* (John XVI, 28), and: *I live because of the Father* (John VI, 58). As to all that He has, it is not by participation or as if taught, but as from a cause, as when He says: *The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it* (John V, 19). For if the Father is not, the Son is not either. For from the Father is the Son, and in the Father, and together with the Father, and not after the Father. Similarly, also, what He does, He does from Him and with Him. For one and the same—I mean the same, and not merely similar—is the will, operation, and power of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Others, further, are said as if the paternal good pleasure is being fulfilled through His operation, not as through an instrument or a servant, but as through His own hypostatic Word, and Wisdom, and Power, because one motion is contemplated in the Father and the Son; as: *All things were made through Him* (John I, 3); and: *He sent His Word and healed them* (Ps. CVI, 20); and: *That they may know that You have sent me* (John XVII, 3).

^A Furthermore, there is also a prophetic mode, of which there is a double genus. Some things are spoken of as future, as for example: *He shall come manifestly*; and that of Zechariah: *Behold, your King comes to you*; and what was said by Micah: *Behold, the Lord comes forth from His place, and will descend, and will tread upon the high places of the earth*. Others, even though they are future, are nevertheless spoken of as if they were past, as: *This is our God... Afterward He appeared on earth, and conversed with men*; and that: *The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works*; and that: *Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows*, and things of this kind.

Things, therefore, that precede the union and follow the union are said of Him. But things that follow the union are by no means said before the union, unless it be in a prophetic manner, as we have said.

Now, there are three modes of the things that are in the union. ^B For when we speak from the more excellent part, we speak of the deification of the flesh, and the *Logos*-ization, and the superelevation, and such like, indicating the riches imparted to the flesh from its union and connaturality with the most high God the Word. But when we speak from the inferior part, we describe the incarnation of God the Word, the assumption of humanity, the emptying, the poverty, the humiliation; for these and such like things are attributed to the Word and God on account of His union with humanity. Finally, when our discourse is of both at once, we use the terms union, communion, anointing, natural and intimate coherence, conformation, and other words of this type.

On account, therefore, of this third mode, the two aforementioned modes are spoken of. For by the union it is indicated what each had from the composition and circumincession of that which co-exists with it. For because of the union according to hypostasis, the flesh is said to be deified and to have become God, and co-divine with the Word; and God the Word is said to be incarnate, and to have become man, and a creature, and is called the last; not as if the two natures were changed into one composite nature (for it is impossible for such opposite natural properties to exist together in one nature), but as the two natures united according to hypostasis, and possessing an unconfused and immutable circumincession into one another. ^C This circumincession did not originate from the flesh, but from the divinity. For it is impossible for the flesh to circuminsess the divinity; but the divine nature, having once circuminsessed through the flesh, gave to the flesh also the ineffable circumincession toward itself, which we call union.

But it must be known that in the first and second modes of those things that are in the union, the reverse is considered; for when [we speak]—

of the flesh, we say "deification," "assumption to the Word," "superexaltation," and "anointing." For these things proceed from the divinity and are considered with respect to the flesh. Again, when we speak of the Word, we use the terms "emptying," "incarnation," "becoming man," "humiliation," and similar expressions, which, as we have said, are transferred from the flesh to the Word and God; for He himself willingly endured these things.

After the union, there are three modes. The first is that which declares the divine nature, such as: *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*; and: *I and the Father are one*. Furthermore, all things that are said of Him before the ^B assumption of humanity will also be said of Him after the assumption of humanity, with this one exception: that He had not yet assumed flesh and the natural properties of the flesh.

The second is the mode of the human nature, as in the passage: *Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?* and that: *Even so must the Son of man be lifted up*, and other things of this kind.

There are six modes for those things which are said and written of the Savior Christ according to ^C a human manner, whether in words or in deeds. For some of them are done and said naturally in accordance with the divine economy; such as the birth from a Virgin, the growth and progress in age, hunger, thirst, toil, tears, sleep, the piercing by nails, death, and such like, which are natural and blameless passions. For in all these there is a union of the divine with the human, yet the body is believed to be truly such; for the divinity suffered none of these things, but through them procured our salvation.

Some are by way of pretense—for example, the questioning, *Where have you laid Lazarus?*; the journey to the fig tree; the turning aside, that is, withdrawing; the prayer; and ^D *He made as though He would go further*. For of these and similar things, He had need neither as God nor as man, but He fashioned them in a human manner, as necessity and utility required. For example, He prayed in order to show that He is not an adversary of God, and to honor the Father as His own cause. He questioned, not because He was ignorant, but to show that He was truly man as well as remaining God. He withdrew to teach us not to enter into dangers rashly nor to betray ourselves.

Some things, again, are said by way of appropriation and reference, such as: *My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?* and that:*

He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin*; and that: *He became a curse for us*; and that: *The Son himself will be subject to him who subjected all things to him.* For neither as God nor as man was he ever forsaken by the Father; nor did he become sin or a curse, nor does he stand in need of subjection to the Father. For in as much as he is God, he is equal to the Father, and is neither his adversary nor ^A subject to him; and in as much as he is man, he never became disobedient to his begetter, so as to require subjection. Therefore, by appropriating our person and ranking himself with us, he said these things. For we were the ones liable to sin and the curse, being disobedient and rebellious, and for this reason forsaken.

Some things, however, are said on account of a distinction made by mental abstraction. For if you divide by thought things which are inseparable in reality—that is, the flesh from the Word—he is called both a servant and ignorant; for he was of a servile and ignorant nature, and if the flesh had not been united to the Word of God, it would indeed have been servile and ignorant. But because of the hypostatic union with the Word of God, it was neither servile nor ignorant. For this same reason, he called God his Father.

Some things, again, are said for the sake of our manifestation and the confirmation of our faith, as when he says: *Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.* For he himself was and is glorified, but the glory was not made manifest and confirmed to us. And that which was said by the Apostle: *Who was determined* ^B *to be the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead*; for by miracles, and by the resurrection, and by the descent of the Holy Spirit, it was made manifest and confirmed to the world that he is the Son of God. And that: *Predestined*—

He increased in wisdom and grace*. ^A

Some things, finally, are said of him as if he had assumed the person of the Jews, by enrolling himself in their number, as when he says to the Samaritan woman: *You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews*.

The third mode is that which signifies the one hypostasis and represents both natures together. Of this kind is the saying: *I live because of the Father, and he who eats me, he also shall live because of me*; and: *I am going to the Father, and you will no longer see me*; and: *They would not have crucified the Lord of glory*; and: *No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven*, and similar things. ^B

And of the things after the resurrection, some are divine, as: *Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit*—meaning that the Son is God; and: *Behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the world*, and similar things, for as God he is with us. Others are human, as: *They took hold of his feet*; and: *There they will see me*, and similar things.

The modes of those things that are human after the resurrection are various. For some happen truly, yet not by nature [(1)], but by dispensation, to confirm that it was the very body which had suffered that rose, such as the (wounds/scars), the eating, and the drinking after the resurrection. Others happen truly and according to nature, such as moving from place to place without labor, and entering through ^C closed doors. Others occur by pretense, as: *He pretended to go further*. Others, again, belong to both natures together, as: *I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God*; and: *The King of glory shall enter*; and: *He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high*. Others, finally, are to be understood as he includes himself in our order, by the mental precision of the mind, namely, as in: *My God and your God*.

One must therefore assign the sublime things to the divine and higher nature, which is free from passion and body; and the humble things, ^D

to the human; and the common things to the composite, that is, to the one Christ, who is God and man. And one must realize that both belong to one and the same Lord of ours, Jesus Christ. For in acknowledging what is proper to each, and in observing that both are performed by one and the same, we shall hold to the right faith and will not go astray. From all these considerations, the distinction of the united natures is known, and that divinity and humanity are not the same, as the most holy Cyril says, in terms of natural quality; yet the Son, and Christ, and Lord, is one. And although he is one, and his Person is one, nonetheless, because of the recognition of the natural difference, the union according to hypostasis admits of no partition whatsoever.

CAP. XIX. That God is not the author of evil.

Knowledge of the term "action" in Scripture as meaning "permission." It is fitting to know that it is a custom of Holy Scripture to call God’s permission His action, as ^A when the Apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans: *Or has not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?* ^B Truly, it is because He Himself makes both the one and the other; for He alone is the Creator of all things. Yet He Himself does not create vessels as honorable or dishonorable; rather, that is the work of each person's own will and choice. And this is clear from those words which the same Apostle uses in the Second Epistle to Timothy: *In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.* It is evident that this cleansing happens voluntarily. For, he says, *if any man shall cleanse himself.* ^C But the logical converse responds from the opposite, that if he does not cleanse himself, he shall be a vessel unto dishonor, useless to the Lord, and worthy to be broken. Therefore the passage here cited, as well as that one: *God hath concluded all in unbelief*; and this one: *God hath given them the spirit of compunction, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear*; these things, I say, are all not to be understood as if God Himself had wrought them, but that He permitted them, both because of the freedom of the will and because the good is of such a nature that it must be free from force and ^D compulsion.

It is the custom of Scripture, therefore, to speak of God’s ^A permission as if it were His action and work. Nay, even when it says that God creates evil, and that "there is no evil in the city which the Lord has not done," 1 it does not mean that God is the author of evils, but, because the name of evil is ambiguous and has a twofold signification, it uses this term. For sometimes it indicates that which is evil by nature, which is opposed to virtue and to the will of God; and sometimes it indicates that which is evil and grievous to our sense, such as afflictions and the visitations of calamity. These, though in appearance evil—being painful—are in reality good; for to those who are of a discerning mind, they become the agents of conversion and salvation. Of these, Scripture says God is the author. It should be known, however, that we are the cause of these things, too, for involuntary evils are the offspring of voluntary ones.

It should also be known that it is the custom of Scripture to speak of certain things that occur as an outcome, in a way that suggests causality, as in the passage: "Against Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged." 2 For he who sinned did not sin in order that God might overcome, nor did God need our sin in order that He might appear as victor by means of it. For He who is the Creator, incomprehensible and uncreated, who possesses His glory by nature and not by acquisition, ^B overcomes and surpasses all, even those who do not sin, beyond all comparison. But because when we sin He is not unjust in bringing wrath, and when we repent He grants forgiveness, He is shown to be the victor over our wickedness; yet we do not sin for this reason, but rather it is the way the matter turns out. Just as if someone were sitting working, and a friend should visit, and he should say: My friend came so that I would not work today. The friend did not come in order that he might not work, but it so happened; for being occupied with the reception of his friend, he does not work. Such things are called results because that is how things turn out. God does not wish for Himself alone to be righteous, but for all, as much as possible, to be likened unto Him.

CHAPTER XX.

That there are not two principles.

^A Then, who will have assigned to each his own territory? For they will not say that they have met and come to an agreement with one another; since evil would no longer be evil if it maintained peace and came to terms with the good, nor would the good be good if it maintained a friendly relationship with evil. But if there is another who has assigned to each of these their proper place of habitation, that one will be more truly God. ^B And it is necessary that one of two things be the case: either they touch and destroy one another, or there is some space in the middle in which neither good nor evil exists, like some kind of partition separating them from one another. And then there will no longer be two, but three principles. It is also necessary that, of these, one of two things be the case: either they live in peace, which evil cannot do—for that which is at peace is not evil—or they fight, which the good cannot do—for that which fights is not perfectly good. Or else the evil fights, and the good does not fight back, but is destroyed by the evil, or is always being grieved and harmed, which is not a hallmark of the good. There is, therefore, one single principle, free and immune from all evil.

*Evil is the privation of good, not some substance.* — But, they say, if this is the case, what is the origin of evil? For it is impossible for evil to have had its beginning from the good. We say, then, that evil is nothing else but the privation of good, and a turning away from that which is according to nature into that which is against nature; for nothing is evil by nature. For all things that God made are very good, insofar as they exist; thus, remaining as they were created, they are very good. ^C But when they voluntarily turn aside from that which is according to nature and move into that which is contrary to nature, they become evil. Now, by nature, all things are servants and obedient to the Creator. When, therefore, any of the creatures voluntarily kicks over the traces and becomes disobedient to its Maker, it establishes wickedness within itself. For wickedness is not some substance, nor is it a property of substance, but an accident; that is, a voluntary turning away from that which is according to nature into that which is contrary to nature, which is sin.

They fall away, and move toward that which is opposed to nature.

*The devil is the parent of sin, by will, not by nature.* — Whence, then, is sin? ^D It is clearly an invention of the devil's free will. Is the devil, then, evil? Certainly, insofar as he was created, he is not evil, but good; for he was created by the Creator as a luminous and most splendid angel, endowed with freedom of choice as a rational being. But by his own will he departed from the virtue which is according to nature, and became a darkness of wickedness, having withdrawn from God, the only good, and life-giving, and light-giving; for from Him all...

is fallen into the darkness of malice, departing far from God, who is solely good and the parent of life and light: for from Him it draws its goodness, whatever is good, and it is in so far as it departs from Him by its own will (for not by place) that it lingers in evil.

CHAPTER XXI. Why God created those who were to be sinners and not to repent.

CHAPTER XXII. Concerning the law of God and the law of sin.

^A and our own unforced and voluntary acceptance, is constituted. And this itself is also called law. The law of God, therefore, entering into our mind, draws it toward itself and pricks our conscience. And our conscience is also called the law of our mind. The suggestion of the evil one, that is, the law of sin, entering into the members of our flesh, also attacks us through it. For having once voluntarily transgressed the law of God and accepted the suggestion of the wicked one, we gave it entry, having been sold by ourselves to sin. Hence, our body is readily and easily driven toward it. Wherefore, that scent and perception of sin which resides in the body, that is, the concupiscence and pleasure of the body, is called the law in the members of our flesh.

The law of my mind, then, that is, the conscience, delights in the law of God, that is, in the commandment, and wills it. But the law of sin, that is, the suggestion through the law that is in the members, that is, the desire, the propensity, ^B the motion, and the irrational part of the soul, wars against the law of my mind (that is, the conscience) and takes me captive. And while I will the law of God and love it and do not will sin, it, through intermixture ^C and by means of the seduction of pleasure and the desire of the body and the irrational part of the soul, as I said, leads me astray and persuades me to serve sin. But "what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh" (for He assumed flesh, but in no way sin), "condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." For the Spirit helps our infirmity and provides strength to the law of our mind against the law that is in our members. ^D For, "we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered," that is, he teaches us what we should pray for. So that it is impossible, if

one does not act through patience and prayer, to fulfill the commandments of the Lord.

CAP. XXIII. Against the Jews, concerning the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is called the seventh day, and it signifies rest. For on it God rested from all his works, as the divine Scripture says; for this reason the number of days, progressing as far as seven, revolves back again and begins from the first. This number is held in honor among the Jews, since God commanded it to be observed, and not in a casual way, but with the application of very severe penalties upon those who transgress it. And He did not command this simply, but for certain reasons which are understood in a mystical sense by spiritual men endowed with clarity of mind.

^A As far as I can understand, in my ignorance—so that I may begin from what is lower and more coarse—God, knowing the nature of the Israelite people, which was dense and devoted to the flesh, and utterly inclined toward material things, and at the same time lacking in discernment, established this law, first, so that the servant and the beast of burden might rest, as it is written: "For a righteous man pities the lives of his animals." Furthermore, so that they, being free from the distractions of material things, might be gathered toward God, spending the whole of the seventh day in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and in the study of the divine Scriptures, and resting in God. ^B For when there was no law, nor divinely inspired Scripture, the Sabbath was not consecrated to God. But when the divinely inspired Scripture was given through Moses, the Sabbath was dedicated to God, so that those who do not devote their whole life to God, and who do not serve the Master as a Father with all their desire, but as ungrateful servants, might have the opportunity to meditate upon it; so that they might bestow at least a small and trifling portion of their life upon God, and that through the fear of the punishments and reproofs which await the transgressors. For "the law is not laid down for a righteous man, but for the unjust." Since Moses himself, first by fasting for forty days, and again for another forty, remained ^C in attendance.

^A on God, he was undoubtedly afflicting himself even on the Sabbaths, and yet the law commanded that no one should afflict themselves on the Sabbath day. But if they say that this was before the law, what will they say regarding Elijah the Tishbite, who completed a journey of forty days on a single meal? For he, by afflicting himself not only through fasting but also by traveling during the Sabbaths of those forty days, broke the Sabbath; and God, who had given the law, was not angry with him for this, but rather, as a reward for his virtue, offered Himself to his view in Horeb. And what will they say regarding Daniel? Did he not spend three weeks without food? And what of all Israel? Do they not circumcise an infant on the Sabbath, if it happens to be the eighth day? And do they not also observe the great fast, which has been ordained for them, if it falls on a Sabbath? ^B And do not the priests and the Levites violate the Sabbath in the works of the tabernacle, and are they not blameless? Nay, if a beast of burden falls into a pit on the Sabbath, he who pulls it out is blameless, but he who ignores it is guilty. And what of all Israel? Did they not go around the walls of Jericho for seven days, carrying the ark of God, a period which certainly included the Sabbath?

As I therefore said, the observance of the Sabbath was devised for the sake ^C of leisure toward God, so that they might dedicate at least the smallest portion of their life to Him, and that both the slave and the beast of burden might rest; it was intended for those who were still as infants, and enslaved under the elements of the world, carnal, and capable of thinking nothing beyond the body and the letter. But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His only-begotten Son, born of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. For as many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name; so that we are no longer slaves, but sons; no longer under the law, but under grace; no longer serving the Lord only in part out of fear, but obligated to dedicate to Him the whole ^D time of our life, so that we command that slave—I mean anger and desire—to rest from sin, and to be at leisure for God. We stretch forth all desire always toward God, while we arm our anger against the enemies of God; and we likewise refresh our beast of burden, that is, the body, giving it rest from the servitude of sin, and urging it to serve the divine commandments. These are the things which the spiritual law of Christ ordains for us.

^A For when the perfect has come, that which is in part has been done away; and with the covering of the law—that is, the veil—having been torn asunder through the crucifixion of the Savior, and with the Spirit shining forth in tongues of fire, the letter has been abolished, the corporal things have ceased, and the law of servitude has been fulfilled, and the law of liberty has been given to us. And we celebrate the perfect rest of human nature; I mean the day of the resurrection, in which the Lord Jesus, the author of life and Savior, has introduced us into the promised inheritance for those who worship God in spirit, into which He Himself has entered as our forerunner, having risen from the dead; and with the gates of heaven opened to Him, He has sat down bodily at the right hand of the Father, ^B whither those also who keep the law of the Spirit will eventually enter.

To us, then, who walk in the Spirit and not in the letter, there belongs the stripping away of all carnal things, and spiritual worship, and union with God. For circumcision is the putting away of carnal pleasure and of superfluous and unnecessary things. For the foreskin is nothing other than skin—a superfluity of the organ of pleasure. And every pleasure which is not of God and in God is a superfluous portion of pleasure, of which the foreskin is a type. And the Sabbath is rest from sin. Thus both are one and the same; ^C and so both, when kept together by those who live according to the Spirit, do not create even the slightest mark of transgression.

Furthermore, it must be known that the number seven signifies the entire present time, as the most wise Solomon says: "Give a portion to seven, and also to eight." And the divinely inspired David, in chanting about the eighth, was chanting about the state that is to come after the resurrection from the dead. The law, therefore, in commanding that the seventh day should be kept as a rest from bodily things and that one should busy himself with spiritual things, mystically hinted that the true Israelite, who has a mind that sees God, should at all times offer himself to God ^D and rise above bodily things.

CAP. XXIV. On Virginity.

The carnal-minded disparage virginity, and those who are lovers of pleasure bring forward as witness: "Cursed is everyone who does not raise up seed in Israel." But we say, trusting in the God-Word who was incarnate from a Virgin, that virginity was planted from above and from the beginning in the nature of human beings. From

^A a virgin earth the human being was fashioned. From Adam alone was Eve created. In paradise, virginity was practiced. For the divine Scripture says that "they were naked, both Adam and Eve, and they were not ashamed." But when they transgressed, they knew that they were naked, and becoming ashamed, they sewed for themselves loincloths. And after the transgression, because he heard "You are earth, and to earth you shall return," at the time when death entered into the world through the transgression, then "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore." So that the race might not be worn out and consumed by death, marriage was devised, so that through procreation the human race might be preserved.

But perhaps they will say: "What, then, is the meaning of 'male and female,' and that saying: 'Be fruitful and multiply'?" To which question we will answer that by these words, "Be fruitful and multiply," the multiplication that is brought about through conjugal union is not entirely signified. For God could have multiplied our race in another way, if they had kept his commandment uncorrupted to the end. But because God, in His foreknowledge—to whom all things are known before they come to be—perceived that they would act against what was commanded and be condemned to death, He, anticipating this, created them male and female, and commanded them to increase and multiply. Let us therefore proceed along the path we have begun, and let us see the gifts of virginity, or indeed of chastity. ^B

Castity was a protection from the flood. When Noah was commanded to enter the ark, and this duty was laid upon him, that he should preserve the seed of the world, he received such a commandment as this: "Enter, you and your sons, and your wife, and the wives of your sons." He therefore separated them from their wives, so that by the support of chastity they might survive the sea and that shipwreck of the entire world. But when the flood was calmed, "Go out," He says, "you, and your wife, and your sons, and the wives of your sons." Behold, again, for the sake of multiplication, marriage is permitted. ^C Then Elijah, that fire-breathing charioteer and heavenly traveler, did he not embrace celibacy, and did he not demonstrate its virtue as something superior to the human condition? Who shut the heavens? Who raised the dead? Who divided the Jordan? Was it not the virgin Elijah? And Elisha, his disciple, did he not follow in his footsteps? ^D

^A Was it not he who, having given a specimen of equal virtue, obtained the grace of the Spirit, for which he had asked a double portion? What of the three youths? Having practiced virginity, did they not overcome the fire, having obtained through virginity this, that their bodies could not be consumed by fire? Why should I mention Daniel, whose body was so hardened by virginity that the teeth of wild beasts could not be fixed into it? Was it not that God, being about to be seen by the Israelites, commanded them to keep their bodies pure from lust? Did not the priests keep themselves chaste so that they might enter the inner sanctums of the temple and offer sacrifices? And did not the Law finally proclaim chastity to be a great vow?

On explaining the places of Scripture.

Virginity is an angelic way of life, and more excellent than marriage.

What do I mean by "angel"? Christ himself is the glory of virginity, who not only was begotten of the Father without flux or union, but who also, having become man for our sake, was made flesh from the Virgin without marital copulation, and showed forth in himself true and absolute virginity. ^D For this reason, he did not prescribe it to us by law—"For," as he himself says, "not all can receive this word"—but he taught us by his own work and strengthened us for it. For to whom is it not clear that virginity now flourishes among men?

^A And childbearing, which marriage brings about, is good; and marriage is good, by reason of fornication, which it cuts off, and by not allowing the rage of lust, through the provision of lawful union, to run madly into lawless deeds. Marriage is good for those who do not have the gift of continence; but virginity is better, increasing the soul’s fruit-bearing and offering to God a ripe fruit, namely prayer. "Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

CHAP. XXV.

On circumcision.

^A And it is clear. For when Israel lived alone by itself in the desert for forty years, not mixing with any other nation, none of those who were born in the desert were circumcised. But when Jesus led them across the Jordan, they were circumcised, and a second law of circumcision came to be. For the law of circumcision was given to Abraham, then ceased in the desert for forty years. And again, for the second time, God gave to Jesus the law of circumcision after passing through the Jordan, as it is written in the book of Joshua the son of Nun: "And at that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make for yourself knives of stone from the hard rock, and sitting down, circumcise the sons of Israel a second time." And after a few words: "For Israel went about for forty-two years in the desert of Madbaritis, and for this reason most of the men of war who had come out of Egypt were uncircumcised, having disobeyed the commandments of God, to whom also He swore that they would not see the good land which the Lord swore to their fathers to give to them, a land flowing with milk and honey." In their place, He substituted their sons, whom Joshua circumcised because they were uncircumcised on the way. So circumcision was a sign, separating Israel from the nations with whom they dwelt.

^C Circumcision was a type of baptism. For just as circumcision does not cut away a useful member of the body, but a useless superfluity, so through holy baptism we are circumcised of sin; and sin, it is clear, is a superfluity of desire, and not a useful desire. For it is impossible for a person not to desire at all, or to be completely devoid of pleasure; but that which is useless in pleasure, that is the useless desire and pleasure—that is sin, which holy baptism circumcises, providing us with the precious cross as a sign upon our forehead, not separating us from the nations—for all nations have attained baptism and have been sealed with the sign of the cross—but distinguishing the faithful from the infidel in every nation. ^D Therefore, with the truth manifested, the type and shadow are useless. Hence it is now superfluous to be circumcised, and it is contrary to holy baptism. For he who is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law; and the Lord, in order to fulfill the law, was circumcised; and He also kept the whole law and the Sabbath, that He might fulfill and establish the law. Since

^A he was baptized, and the Holy Spirit appeared to men, descending upon Him in the form of a dove, from that time the spiritual worship and rule of life, and the kingdom of the heavens, have been proclaimed.

Chap. XXVI. On the Antichrist.

It should be known that the Antichrist must come. For every one who does not confess that the Son of God has come in the flesh, and that He is perfect God and has become perfect man, while continuing to be God, is an Antichrist. However, in a peculiar and special sense, he is called ^B Antichrist who is to come at the consummation of the world. Therefore, it is necessary first that the Gospel be preached among all nations, as the Lord said, and then he will come, for the conviction of the godless Jews. For the Lord said to them: "I came in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me; another will come in his own name, and him you will receive." And the Apostle: "Because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this reason God will send them a working of error, that they may believe the lie, that all might be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to iniquity." The Jews, therefore, did not receive the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Son of God and God, but they will receive the impostor who claims to be God. ^C That he will call himself God, the angel teaching Daniel indicates in these words: "He shall not consider the gods of his fathers." And the Apostle: "Let no one deceive you by any means; for unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Into the temple of God, he says—not our temple, but the ancient one, the Jewish one. For he will not come to us, but to the Jews; not on behalf of Christ, but against Christ; so that he is rightfully called Antichrist. He will also rebuild in Jerusalem the stone temple, which is everywhere in the Church, [he will seek to destroy].

Antichrist will be a true man.

The beginnings and progress of Antichrist.

Enoch and Elias to do battle with Antichrist.

Notes on the interpretation regarding the devil's role.

CAP. XXVII. Of the resurrection.

^A We believe also in the resurrection of the dead. For there will indeed be a resurrection of the dead; it will truly be. But by "resurrection" we mean the resurrection of bodies. For resurrection is the second standing up of that which has fallen. Since souls are immortal, how shall they rise? If they define death as the separation of soul from body, resurrection is by all means the reunion of soul and body, and the second standing up of the animal that was dissolved and had fallen. Therefore, this very body which is corrupted and dissolved, the same shall rise incorrupt. For ^B He who in the beginning fashioned it from the dust of the earth is not powerless to raise it up again, even if it has been dissolved and returned to the earth from which it was taken, according to the decree of the Creator.

For if there is no resurrection, let us eat and drink, and lead a life of pleasure and luxury. If there is no resurrection, in what do we differ from the irrational animals? If there is no resurrection, let us call the beasts of the field blessed, which live a life free from sorrow. If there is no resurrection, then there is no God, and no providence, but all things are driven and borne along by chance. ^C For behold, we see many righteous men living in poverty and suffering injustice, and receiving no comfort in this present life, whereas sinners and wicked men abound in wealth and every kind of luxury. And who, possessing a sound mind, would judge this to be the work of a just judgment or wise providence? Therefore, there will be a resurrection; there will be. For God is just, and He will render a reward to those who endure for Him. Now, if the soul alone had struggled in the contest of virtue, it alone would be crowned. And if it alone had wallowed in pleasures, it alone would justly be punished; ^D but since the soul has not pursued either virtue or vice apart from the body, both shall justly receive their rewards together.

[alt-version omitted]

NOTES. (12) "We mean the resurrection of bodies." We indicate the resurrection of the dead. Justin, in his book *On the Resurrection* against the Platonists and heretics who posited the transmigration of souls, argued the same way: "Resurrection is of the flesh that has fallen." For spirit does not fall; the soul is in the body; but that which lacks a soul does not live. The body does not remain when the soul departs. I shall provide the complete passage, along with other passages from the same work, in the *Parallels* of John of Damascus. I omit the other Fathers who have written on this subject. Furthermore, Origen, against whom many took up their pens for this very reason, did not deny the resurrection of bodies in its entirety, but only of the flesh, as if it were something with which the bodies of men had been clothed after sin. He had incorrectly understood this matter, and fell into this opinion from the words of the Apostle: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and, "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." Irenæus refutes this prejudice thus: that flesh, indeed, left to itself, cannot reach the kingdom of God, yet it is the handiwork of God, and, being vegetated by the divine spirit, it becomes the temple of God. Moreover, he notes that it is not the substance of the flesh that is signified, but its concupiscences, which mortify man. In which sense Paul himself used to say: "You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." And again: "Walking in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh." Whence he infers: Just as flesh is capable of corruption, so also is it capable of incorruption, and just as it is capable of death, so also is it of life. He adds more, which our author continues, as do other Fathers.

^A Divine Scripture also bears witness that there will be a resurrection of bodies. For God says to Noah after the flood: "As the green herb I have given you all things. But flesh with blood of the soul you shall not eat; and your blood of your souls I will require, from the hand of all the beasts I will require it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of his brother I will require the life of man. He who sheds the blood of man, instead of his blood it shall be shed, because in the image of God I made man." How will He require the blood of man from the hand of all the beasts, if it be not that He will raise up the bodies of men who die? For the beasts will not die in the place of man.

And again to Moses: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." ^B He is not the God of the dead, meaning those who have died and are no more, but of the living, whose souls indeed live in His hand, but whose bodies will live again through the resurrection. And the ancestor of God, David, says to God: "You will take away their spirit, and they will fail, and return to their dust." Behold, the word concerns the bodies. Then he adds: "You will send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created, and You will renew the face of the earth."

And Isaiah also: "The dead shall rise, and those who are in the tombs shall be awakened." It is clear that it is not souls that are placed in tombs, but bodies.

And the blessed Ezekiel says: "And it happened, as I was prophesying, and behold, an earthquake, and the bones drew near, bone to bone, each to its own joint. And I saw, and behold, there came upon them nerves, and flesh grew and came up upon them, and skin was stretched over them from above." Then he teaches how, upon being commanded, the spirits returned.

And divine Daniel says: "And at that time Michael shall rise, the great prince who stands for the children of your people. And there shall be a time of distress, such a distress as has not been ^C since a nation existed on Earth until that time. And at that time your people shall be saved, all who are found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these to eternal life, and these to reproach and eternal shame. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and of the many righteous, like the stars for ever and ever." — In saying, "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," it is clear that ^D he indicates the resurrection of bodies; for no one would ever say that souls sleep in the dust of the earth.

Furthermore, the Lord openly taught the resurrection of bodies in the holy Gospels: "For they shall hear," He says, "who are in the graves, the voice of the Son of God; and they shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment." ^A Now, no one of sound mind would ever say that souls are or stay in graves.

The Lord declared the resurrection of bodies not only by word, but also by deed. First, when He raised Lazarus, who had been dead four days, and was already corrupt and stinking. For He did not raise a soul deprived of a body, but a body with its soul; and not another body, but the very one that had decayed. For how could the resurrection of one who had died be recognized or believed, if it were not confirmed by the most certain marks and characteristics of his person? ^B Truly, He raised Lazarus to manifest His own divinity, and to build up faith in both His own resurrection and ours, though he was destined to return to death. But the Lord Himself became the harbinger and first-fruits of the perfect, immortal resurrection. And for this reason, the divine Apostle Paul said: "If the dead rise not, neither is Christ risen. And if Christ be not risen, then is our faith vain; ye are yet in your sins." And: "For Christ is risen, the first-fruits of them that slept." And: "The firstborn from the dead." ^C And again: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him." Just so, he says, as the Lord rose again.

That the Lord’s resurrection was the union of a now incorrupt body and a soul (for these were the things that had been divided), is clear. For He said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." And the holy Gospel is a trustworthy witness that He spoke concerning His own body. ^D "Handle me and see," the Lord said to His own disciples, when they thought they saw a spirit, "for it is I myself, and I am not changed; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side, and offered them to Thomas to touch. Are not these things sufficient to procure faith in the resurrection of bodies

^A And again the divine Apostle says: For this corruptible must put on incorruption: and this mortal must put on immortality. And again: It is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown in dishonor, it will rise in glory. It is sown an animal body, that is, gross and mortal, it will rise a spiritual body 14, immutable, impassible, subtle (for this is what spiritual signifies, such as the body of the Lord was after the resurrection, when He passed through closed doors), indefatigable, and needing neither food nor sleep nor drink. For they will be, says the Lord, as the angels of God. Nor will there be any place for marriages or the procreation of children. For the divine Apostle says: Our conversation is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus, who will reform the body of our humility, that it may be made conformable to the body of His glory. In which place, he does not understand a change into another form (far be this), but rather a transformation from corruption to the state of incorruption.

^B 'But someone will say: How are the dead raised? O the unbelief! O the folly! He who by will alone changed dust into a body, He who commanded the small drop of seed to grow in the womb, and to fashion this manifold and multiform instrument of the body, will He not rather raise up again that which has been and has flowed away, having only willed it? And with what body do they come? O fool, if blindness does not allow you to believe the words of God, believe at least the works. For that which you sow is not quickened, unless it die; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body that shall be, but a bare grain, if it chance, of wheat, or of some of the others. But God gives it a body as He has willed, and to each of the seeds its own body. Behold, therefore, how the seeds are buried in the furrows as in tombs. Who is it that puts roots into them, stalk, and leaves, and ears, and the finest beards? Is it not the Creator of all things? Is it not the command of Him who fashioned all things? Thus, therefore, believe that the resurrection of the dead will also be by divine will and nod. For He has power concurrent with His will. ^C

Judgment after the resurrection and the reward of works. — ^A We shall rise again, therefore, our souls being joined once more to our bodies, which shall have become incorruptible and have put off corruption; and we shall stand before the dread judgment seat of Christ. And the devil and his demons, and his man—that is to say, Antichrist—as well as the impious and wicked men, shall be delivered into eternal fire: a fire, I say, not consisting of matter like ours, but such as God alone knows. But those who have done good shall shine like the sun with the angels into eternal life, together with our Lord Jesus Christ, seeing Him always and being seen by Him, and enjoying from Him an indefectible joy, praising Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the infinite ages of ages. Amen.

THREE ORATIONS OF ST. JOHN DAMASCENE PRO SACRED IMAGES

^B No one is ignorant of what a remarkable labor my Damascene performed on behalf of the images. He had scarcely known that Leo the Isaurian had resolved by edict to overthrow them when he sang his classic response against him. The author of his *Life* says that he sent epistolary treatises to the pupils of the true faith, with whom he was joined by the bond of friendship and familiarity, so that they too might distribute copies of them, accurately written out, among the faithful. Behold the three dissertations published by him in this cause; from the beginning of the first of which, it may be gathered that he had attempted nothing against Leo before this, since he wrote it to confirm the faithful of the Royal City. That it was published even after the tenth year of Leo the Isaurian, in which the impious edict was promulgated, and before his thirteenth year, in which St. Germanus of Constantinople was cast down from his throne, becomes clear from those words which are read in the continuation of the exordium: "I beseech the whole people of God, together with the good shepherd of the rational flock of Christ, who describes in himself the ^C hierarchy of Christ," etc.

But he sent forth a second treatise when the raging Leo had deposed Patriarch Germanus; and of this crime, as of many others, Damascene complains in the same place (no. XII): "Even now Blessed Germanus, resplendent in both life and doctrine, has been struck by blows and cast into exile, and with him many other bishops and Fathers whose names are unknown to us." However, it suggests nothing regarding the intrusion of Anastasius, whom the Isaurian had substituted on the fifteenth day after Germanus’s abdication, as that was evidently heard of more slowly in the East. Furthermore, these three orations were written at an age when the bishops of the Orient still abstained from pronouncing an anathema against Leo. For, toward the end of both orations, having brought forward the testimonies of the holy Fathers, he adds: "Even if you, says the Apostle Paul, or an angel, should preach to you anything beyond what you have received..."—that which follows, we shall hold our peace for now, sparing those whose conversion we hope for. But if we should see them—which God forbid!—obstinate in their perverse opinion, then we shall pronounce that which follows, namely: "Let him be anathema." Indeed, he also insinuates this in the very series of the second and third treatises, where he so softens that same sentence of the Apostle: "Even if an angel, even if an emperor, should preach to you anything beyond what you have received, stop your ears." ^D I hesitate for the present to say, as the divine Apostle said, "let him be anathema," awaiting their correction.