Fragments

^A nor that it is, perhaps, in gold or clay, so as to be covered and rendered invisible to the sight. Does one say that it is damaged in its own essence, on account of the assumption of the wax or the other things, and does he not say that the two natures, that of the copper and that of the wax or the gold, are preserved in it inviolate? Then, can we not say that there come to be four statues on account of the addition that is made? Therefore, by the same example, just as from small things one may conjecture the great, and mirror forth the truth in certain faint images, you will understand also in the case of Christ two natures, but one hypostasis; and you will in no wise suspect that an addition is made to the Trinity. Duo de hoc argumento fragmenta legere est inter Opera S. Joannis Damasceni Patrol. tom. XCI, col. 216, 1049.

II. From Anastasius of Antioch, from the "Against the Divider."

Even if man is sometimes said to be of one nature, it is not the individual, but the universal, on account of the sameness of the species and the similarity of the constitution, where "nature" is taken instead of the common species and of being constituted in a similar manner. And again, therefore, there is not one nature of soul and body; for the one is rational and intellectual and incorporeal, while the other is dense and mortal and irrational; and not being divided according to essence ^B of one nature, man is therefore not of one essence. For to say otherwise, if every definition is indicative of the underlying natures, man is defined as a rational, mortal animal; but the rational is not the same as the mortal according to the principle of nature; therefore, man is not of one nature according to the rule of his proper definition. But if man should ever be said to be of one nature, the name of "nature" is taken instead of "species."

Or [one may say, in opposition to those] who argue that man does not differ from man in any difference of nature, but that men are naturally such as to have [humanity] in common with one another, according to the principle of constitution, so that all are referred under one definition. And this is not paradoxical, since we sometimes speak of all generated, created things at once globally, whether they be rational or corporeal, as being of one nature by virtue of the fact that they are generated, in contrast to the uncreated and unbegotten divine nature, as the blessed Athanasius clearly shows, among all other teachers, in his work against those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, speaking thus: "That the Spirit is above creation, and is something other than the nature of generated things, and is proper to the Godhead, it is possible to see from this again." And further, therefore, the individual and discrete man could not be of one nature, but he is of one hypostasis, and two ^C natures.

III. ON THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN: GOD CREATED ACCORDING TO THE IMAGE, etc.

By Anastasius the Presbyter, concerning the: "According to the image and according to the likeness, made by God," a discourse.

I conferred with one of the interpreters, and he said that once, as he was studying the holy Scripture, suddenly it was as if his intellectual eyes were opened, and he saw all the constitution of creation, and in all things therein, the image and type of the incarnation of God the Word portraying itself. And for this reason Paul says concerning Christ, that: "All things were created through Him and unto Him." It behooves those who are about to reason wisely and prudently with heretics concerning the properties of Christ, that is, concerning will or concerning energy, before any discourse to demand of them to set forth in writing the subscribed definitions; for by them their foolishness is easily refuted. For the holy Fathers have spoken of two perfections in Christ, that is to say, that He is perfect in Godhead likewise, and perfect in ^D humanity. It is therefore necessary to demand of them to define, if indeed they know. What is the definition of a true consubstantiality? What is the definition of a perfect, complete [being]? What is the definition of a rational soul? What is the definition of an irrational soul? And what is the definition of the soul of Christ? And what is a carnal will? And what is a soul? And what is divine? And if they have the power to define the aforesaid terms according to the Fathers, and not according to the Greeks, they fall, being refuted by them; for just as the consubstantiality with the Father shows the Word to be an undiminished God, so in every way the consubstantiality of His body and soul with us sets Him forth also as an undiminished man.

We exhort our brethren in the Lord, with much reverence and circumspection, to reason with the opponents concerning the energies and the wills, and especially with those who cannot comprehend; and...

since the faith of all is not the same, as Paul says, let us not henceforth shout with a shameless face and a most impudent voice, as some foolish ones do, inconsiderately crying out two natural wills and two natural energies, and two naturals of this and that, but with reverence and the fear of God and circumspection; for it is possible and correct to speak of the two natures in Christ. Likewise, it is possible to speak of them—both rightly and wrongly—[in Him] regarding both wills and energies; for both Diodorus and Nestorius speak of two natures of Christ, but hypostatically. And Theodore of Antioch and Arius the Alexandrian speak of two wills, but in opposition. ^A And Manes the Persian speaks of two energies, but [one] of the good God and another of the evil [god]. Therefore, I entreat that we may reason with the opponents with all circumspection, saying to them straightaway that if anyone speaks in Christ of a carnal or worldly will, or an energy altogether contrary to His divinity, or a will opposing the God Word, let him be condemned; for all that the form of the slave possessed, it was subject to and led by the will and counsel of the form of the Master, the God Word. But in order that we do not make His divine nature subject to passions and, as a slave, falling under the Word to the Father, for this reason we rightly ascribe their own properties to each nature of Christ indivisibly.

IV. Of Anastasius of Antioch, from [the letter] to Sergius the Grammarian.

The human nature is truly hidden by the divine nature, ^B even if the reasoning distinguishes its essence; so that it is not easy to discern its nature, [which has been] as it were swallowed up and transformed into that which assumed it; just as that which is [made] with fire partakes of the quality of fire, so that the distinction between that which is partaken of and that which partakes is almost unknown. It is not possible, indeed, to find an image representing this union; nevertheless, we attempt to bring forth something, moderately as regards the greatness of the mystery, but bearing a truer resemblance than the rest. For just as if one were to imagine all the air outside the heaven to be inflamed, or rather to be fire, and a grain of mustard seed or millet were cast into such great fire, it must needs be thoroughly permeated by that which prevails, so as not to appear to be a different fire, even if the definition of its essence has persisted; so too the human nature, being united ^C to the God Word, has been so mastered that it appears as if it were no longer the nature of a man; and in this sense the fathers did not hesitate to say it was deified, not denying the nature; and if it has been so mastered in its essence, yet it is necessary to preserve the difference; for it did not depart from its own first principle; and indeed the divine nature has remained unchangeable in the assumption of our lump [of clay]; which all inspired Scripture sets forth.

Of the same.

But the union has shown us one worship, of both the One who deified and the one who was deified; for the hypostasis is one and inseparable; not with the natures changed, nor the properties altered in their first principle, but according to the mode of the commixture, if I may so speak, in which way one might call Him God and man, and whole God and whole man.

V. On the Gospel of St. Luke.

Of Anastasius.

But those who are higher, through the active and sharper-than-any-two-edged-sword divine Word, cut away from themselves all filth and carnal desire; and they cast off from their own governing faculty the covering of ignorance [dating] from birth; these rightly perform the eighth day of the Lord's circumcision; for we are those who are circumcised in Him with a spiritual circumcision not made by hands.

Of the same.

But it must be asked, first, concerning whom it is written regarding their purification; second, concerning the presenting of Him to the Lord; and third, what the pair of turtledoves and the two young pigeons signify. For if anyone thinks that which is said about their purification [refers] to the holy Theotokos or to the Lord, he will be guilty of impiety; ^D for neither did Joseph know the holy Virgin, nor did she conceive in iniquities like other women, so that they should offer [a sacrifice] for their own purification, but she conceived without seed and gave birth without corruption; and where there is no intercourse of woman and man, no sleep, no pleasure of the one who comes together, no conjunction, what need is there for purification? But neither is this said about the Lord, who is pure and above all purity.

Of the same.

Let us consider what anyone doing the Meeting [Hypapante] might celebrate well: he who has deadened the members upon the earth, and bears about the death of Christ in his body, and is adorned with the gray hair of discernment and wisdom, and is becoming obedient to the divine commandments, and dwelling in Jerusalem—I mean the dispassionate and peaceful state acquired through stillness—and who does not dismissively [treat] the divine Word...

but mystically through deeds [is led] into the two Testaments. The village with the human name signifies the one who receives [Him] into his arms; for the hands and arms are a symbol of action. Having readied himself with such accomplishments to meet the One who is coming—considering this world as His own temple—to judge the living and the dead, one truly, according to the divine aim, celebrates the Meeting (Hypapante) of the Lord, becoming a spiritual Symeon, that is, obedient to the divine commandments. Having performed all things justly and piously at all times, even at the day of his departure, he says: "Now Thou dost dismiss Thy servant." But he who busies himself in the disturbances and worldly temptations, and has never been obedient to the divine signals, how shall he say: "Mine eyes have seen Thy salvation," when his eyes—both the sensible and the intellectual—are always occupied with worldly fantasies and licentious desires? It is not possible to celebrate the Lord in such a way, nor is it possible with such deeds to be confident and hope to meet Him, according to the text: "We shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." *By the same.* Bethphage is interpreted as "house of jaws"; jaws are taken as a type of the word of teaching, which according to the Law were given to the priests. Bethany, moreover, is "house of obedience"; Jerusalem is "vision of peace." Those who are sent are apostles and prophets, or even angels serving Christ for our redemption. The fact that the ones being sent are two signifies the two Testaments. The village with the human name signifies the one who receives [Him] into his arms; for the hands and arms are a symbol of action. ^B And the ass that was tied and the colt signify the nature of all men, which was fashioned into two peoples: that is, into the Jews and the new people of the nations, whom the Lord wills, through the teaching of the prophetic and evangelical words, or through [the ministry of] apostles and evangelists, to be released from the vanity and fantasy of this world, and to be led to Him. This world in itself marks the one who is opposed to those sent; for the friendship of this world is truly hostile to those wishing to follow and be disciples of the Lord, according to what is written, that the "friendship of this world is enmity with God" (Jas. IV, 4). *By the same.* The spreading of their own garments signifies moral instruction; the cutting and spreading of branches signifies the cutting away of [unbelief] just as from a wild olive tree, and subjecting [oneself] to the Lord through true faith. Carrying palm branches characterizes the victory which He has won on our behalf; for palm branches are a symbol of victory. The "Hosanna" is interpreted as "grace and glory to the Son of David"—indeed, the divine Luke, ^C regarding this, said: "Glory in the highest" (Lk. XIX, 38). Now, the same thing said by the crowds going before and behind signifies the symphony and confession of the true faith in Him, both of those before His incarnate dispensation and of those who, after it, rightly believed in Him and through faith, action, and knowledge, pleased Him.

*A fragment of the same Anastasius exists concerning the icon of Saint Theodore pierced by the Saracens. [See] among the works of Saint John of Damascus, new ed. vol. XCIV, p. 1594; as well as a fragment on the new Sunday and on the Apostle Thomas, l. c., p. 415.*

VI.

ON THE DIGNITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD

^D A demonstration that the priesthood is a great and angelic dignity; and that it is impossible for a layman to judge a high priest, but [only] by a greater high priest, just as the holy canons assert; just as is also [recorded] in the Ecclesiastical History of Philo the Philosopher. He who honors the priest will also honor God; but he who learns to despise the priest, proceeding on that path, will eventually insult God Himself. "He who receives you," Christ says, "receives Me" (Mt. X, 40). And another [text] elsewhere: Give honor to the priests of the Lord. Indeed, the Jews also learned from this to despise God, because they despised Moses, and they attacked him with stones, etc.

ANASTASIUS I, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH. NOTICE I. From Galland, *Vet. Patrum Biblioth.*, vol. XII, p. xvii.

^AI. Anastasius, by birth a Palestinian, by profession a monk, along with most of the learned men whom Fabricius praises, ^B must be distinguished entirely from Anastasius of Sinai, who is called by later Greeks *Mouses neos* (the new Moses), as Simon observes. Therefore, one must by no means listen to Nicephorus, who confuses the Anastasius of whom we speak not only with the Sinaite, but also with another Anastasius the Younger, who succeeded the Anastasius of whom we speak here in the episcopate, and died a martyr for Christ in the year 609. Anastasius, then, was elevated to the Theopolitan, or Antiochene, see after Domnus, or Domninus. The beginning of his pontificate, according to the *Chronicle* of Nicephorus and the *Tables* of Theophanes, and following the opinion of Pagi and Le Quien, should be set in the year 559, unlike others who propose the year 561. For his predecessor, who obtained the Antiochene see in the year 545, is found to have ruled that Church for 14 years, and thus our Anastasius is found to have succeeded him in the year 559. Evagrius has described the deeds famously performed by him. He was, in fact, a man held in high regard throughout the East, both for the eminent holiness of his life and for his exceptional learning. Moreover, he is said to have been endowed with great constancy and loftiness of spirit in the defense of the true faith. For he firmly opposed the Emperor Justinian, who had lapsed into the heresy of the Aphthartodocetae; the Emperor had therefore decided to relegate him into exile, but, struck by sudden fate in the year 565, he could not carry out his unjust plan. We understand, however, that a few years later, Justin II, a kinsman of Justinian and no more favorably disposed toward the holy prelate, accomplished that which the former could not, and in the eighth year of his reign he drove him from the Antiochene see and replaced him with Gregory, the prefect of the monastery of Mount Sinai. We learn of these things from Evagrius, who pursues these matters at length. Gregory the Great bore this deposition of Anastasius very heavily. Some of his epistles to the same Antiochene prelate are extant, in which he praises him immoderately; he testifies, moreover, that he had made a request with the highest entreaties to the most serene sovereigns (Maurice and his son Theodosius) that his honor be restored to such a blessed man.

II. Anastasius yielded his pontificate at the end of, or after the completion of, the year 569, after he had first sat for 11 years, *ete ia'* as it is held in the *Chronicle* of Nicephorus and the *Tables* of Theophanes; for which reason Pagi refers his exile less correctly to the year 565. Furthermore, it is found from the inscription of an Oration which our Anastasius delivered when, after twenty-two years, he received his patriarchal throne back, that Gregory, who had been substituted for him in the year 570, ruled the Antiochene Church until the beginning of the year 595. Lambecius reports the inscription of this Oration as follows: "The Oration of the same Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, when he returned to the throne after twenty-three years, etc." The Oration of the same Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, when he returned to his see after twenty-three years. Regarding this inscription, I would have you consult Pagi and Boschius. Le Quien also recites the same: but that learned man seems to have been mistaken while writing that Anastasius had been restored to the Antiochene see by the Emperor Maurice in the twenty-third [year]