A invisible, which they neither saw nor shall see, neither did they lay hold of nor shall they lay hold of, nor did they comprehend nor shall they comprehend, nor did they circumscribe, nor did they put to death, nor did they divide into parts, nor did they eat; of whom they can conceive absolutely nothing in their mind—not nature, nor form, nor species, nor color, nor shape, nor measure, nor motion, nor transmutation, nor descent, nor approach, nor departure, nor anything else of those things which exist in the divine Word—yet they confess this to be a substance. And yet, for me to say something even foolish to them, that which is seen and grasped in things is more believed and confessed by all to be an existing substance [nature] than that which is not seen or grasped, but is believed by word through hearing. For we have received the things of Christ’s divinity by faith through hearing. But the things of His flesh we have learned, seen, and handled by the very experience of the things themselves.
If it shall seem to any of the infidels B to inquire more curiously of us for physical proofs concerning the divinity of Christ, and what the nature of this is, and whence we know that the God who is the Creator of all things was in His flesh, we are able to answer nothing else to one investigating and searching into these things after such a fashion, than that we have received all things which pertain to the divinity of Christ by faith alone, and by faith we hold them; by faith, I say, which is accustomed to acquiesce simply, without investigation and comprehension. And although we faithful have been made certain of Christ’s divinity through signs, yet you heard a little earlier how the adversary opposed to Christ’s miracles the countless wonders of Moses. And indeed, in the war C against Acoluthus the sophist at Antinopolis, when I was holding discussions—that man being a Jew—he himself also opposed the wonders of Moses to the miracles of Christ. Then, when I said that Moses, being a prophet, performed prodigies through prayer, whereas Christ, as God, performed miracles of His own authority and command without prayer, the Jew retorted to these things that Christ also raised Lazarus by prayer, and by prayer multiplied the five loaves, and prayed that the cup might pass from Him, and on the mountain apart, as a man, prayed to God, saying, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” And if He also performed some signs without prayer, that is nothing wonderful; for Moses also performed some miracles through prayer, and others without prayer, just as Elias without prayer D multiplied the oil and the flour. Without prayer Elias divided the Jordan. Without prayer Elisha also blessed the oil, and warded off the death that was in the pot. Without prayer he cleansed Naaman the leper, and the dead man [by the touch of the dead] Elisha raised.
A If you say to me that Moses and the prophets were sent by God as servants, I too will tell you that Christ said that God sent him, and that he could do nothing without God, and that whatever he speaks, he received instructions from God as to what to say and what to speak, and not to do his own will, but that of him who sent him. And if an earthquake and darkness occurred, as you say, when Jesus was crucified, one ought to know that signs, earthquakes, and wonders have frequently occurred on other occasions when holy men were unjustly put to death by the wicked.
Let those who are faithless and atheistic, who babble and blaspheme impiously concerning the divinity of Christ, say these—and similar—things to us, as well as those who assert that the flesh of the Lord was melted into the sea of the invisible divinity and made similar to it. Whence would they persuade the adversaries of Christ’s divinity, if not by faith alone, which is not accustomed to inquire curiously? But as for the nature of which the body consists, we know it not only by faith but by the very experience of things which we have seen and touched, and which we partake of and eat daily in its own natural being and truth. B Furthermore, I believe that all those who—from the times of the most wicked Manes until this present age—deny and reject the nature and the properties of Christ’s body, avoid and turn away from all these things for no other reason than that they are, one and all, completely defiled and inflamed by the ardor of fornication, by impurity, lust, and licentiousness, and by the titillation of bodily pleasures; and because, both by night and by day, in thought as well as in deed, they are disgracefully immersed and wallowing in the amatory frenzies and impurities of the body, and in the illicit appetites, blandishments, and most shameful carnal actions of both men and women, so that they perpetually carry about with them, as it were, a most ardent furnace of flame, by which they rouse the fire—the titillations, so to speak, and sparks—of their flesh, that is, of wanton appetite. C For this reason, they deem the nature of the body to be unclean and altogether indecent, so that we should not even by reason confess that Christ assumed a body similar to ours, or human flesh, or operation, or will, or property of the same rationale and substance as our own. These impure and flagitious swine measure this, I suspect, by the base and wanton actions of their own flesh, so that every other flesh and every other body is, as it were, similarly attacked, D contaminated, and polluted by their own inflammation toward libidinous and unnatural desires, furious pleasures, and the fluxions of mad flesh. Inflamed by this flagitious and carnal disposition, Valentinus was the first to appear after the apostolic times who taught that Christ did not assume flesh similar to ours. The impious Manes, soiled by the same carnal filth, said—in appearance at least—that Christ did not take on flesh.
A For this reason, he taught that our flesh is not a creature of God, but a creature of the devil; and he says that for this reason it is inflamed and attacked by the demon who created it: "For there does not dwell," he says, "any good thing in our flesh." And: "For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." And: "The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God." And: "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" And: "For flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God." And: "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." After the impious Manes had collected these and similar things, and had offered a perverse interpretation of them, some time later there arose Eutyches the archimandrite, Dioscorus, Timothy, Severus, and especially Julian of Halicarnassus. Enticed and taken captive by the books of Manes and Valentinus and others, and stung and kindled by the impure stimuli and titillations of the flesh, and full of perverse desires that suffocated their minds, they denied, in the manner of the Manichaeans, even to this day, the nature of the most holy body of Christ and the things that are proper to that nature. On this account they say that He consists of divinity alone, reasoning that if they attribute to Christ a nature of flesh, they would be attributing something impure, sordid, and unworthy of God.
B We are not setting these things forth now based on conjecture, but from experience itself, having heard them from the mouths of heretics in Alexandria and in other places, especially from the Gaianites. For they, having loathed and disparaged the nature of our body as though it were something impure and vile, could by no means be brought to confess that Christ had a body of the same substance as ours, subject to the same troubles. They themselves bring forward the natural weaknesses of the flesh into which we have fallen through the perversion of disobedience—I mean the corrupt and foul excretions from the stomach caused by food and drink, the flow of sweat, the gnashing of teeth, the pus of wounds, putrefactions, stenches, foul odors, and worms; and they say it is unworthy for the nature of such a body even to come into contact with God. The most foolish, however, do not perceive that the Word of God, that celestial and consuming fire, assumed human nature for no other reason than on account of such affections, so that by uniting them to Himself, He might, as in a furnace, C purify man by His own nature of intellectual fire—that is, the divinity—and restore him to that state which he possessed from the beginning: incorruption, impassibility, solidity, immortality, and a state of most sweet fragrance and savor, and one requiring neither food nor drink. Wherefore, on account of such weaknesses and filth of our earthly flesh, Christ used to say: "I came to cast fire upon the earth," D that is, to join the divinity to our earthly nature. They are therefore clearly refuted,
A those who loathe, revile, and insult the nature of our God formed after His image and likeness, as well as our body, which was fashioned and formed by the hands of God and animated by the divine breath. Indeed, they offend the Creator Himself when they slander the work and likeness of His image, man, as unclean, according to the opinion of the Manichaeans. If, then, the image of the invisible God is unclean, how is it that all things which God made were very beautiful and good? But heretics fall into such things, as I said above, on account of the impurity present in their own flesh, which is wholly repugnant to nature, and because they have subjected themselves, both soul and body, to the empire of the devil. For no one among them, as one clean of heart, has seen God dwelling within himself, according to the word of Christ. None of them has known or seen the kingdom of B heaven within himself. None of them has the treasure of the Spirit in the earthen vessel of a clay body. None of them has borne the image of the supercelestial God in his heart. None among them has become conformed to the glory of the Son of God. For if they had known that he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with the Lord, as the Apostle says; if they had known that those who are worthy can become gods and sons of the Most High; if they had believed that Christ and the Father would come and make their abode with man; if they had learned how man becomes a temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in him; and, to express it briefly, if they had put on Christ according to the saying, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," then Christ Himself, dwelling within them, would have taught them how God dwells and moves within our flesh; and how this C clay body of ours, through the fire of the Spirit, is from that point on conformed to the glory of the image of Christ, and how it is cleansed of every stain and is formed according to the image and likeness of God, as it was in the beginning, through the union and communion of the divinity. For where the divinity dwells, and especially according to substance, there all is chaste, all is holy, all is clean, all is worthy of God. There is nothing there to be cast aside; nothing is filthy, nothing contrary to God—neither body, nor soul, nor mind, nor nature, nor will, nor operation. But, as I said before, because heretics do not have flesh free from depraved desires and defilements, nor have they attained to the purity of nature, they therefore persuade themselves that every other flesh is stained and infected by the mud of pleasures, and for that reason they refuse to confess the human nature in D Christ and those things that follow from nature. What then, says the heretical Nestorius and his followers, who confess that there is a nature and all the properties of nature in Christ; should such people be considered partakers of the Holy Spirit? Away with such an absurdity! For the most significant reason they denied the divinity of Christ and refused to call the most holy Virgin the Theotokos was that they themselves were devoid of the divinity.
A
CHAPTER XV. On the sixth heortastic, or rather, mournful letter of him who is currently bishop of the Theodosians in Alexandria, sent to Babylon.
What more do they assert, those who preach one nature in Christ? For they say: "If we confess two natures in Him, it is absolutely necessary that we confess two natures in the holy Trinity. For whatever is attributed to one of the holy Trinity, Christ, is reckoned to the whole Trinity." Well done, truly, to the great wisdom of the unwise! Excellent, the legislation of these new disciples of Manes! "For this reason," he says, "we do not speak of two united natures in Christ, nor wills, nor operations, because whatever we grant to Christ, who is one of the holy Trinity, that same thing will redound to the whole holy Trinity." B
Scholium. John, the bishop of the Theodosians, five years ago in two of his heortastic, or feast, letters, uttered this expression: "All things that are said concerning Christ are also said of the Father and of the Holy Spirit." And having received the first letter from us, in the next year he asserted the same things again, where those wretched rhetoricians manifestly oppose Gregory the Theologian. For he says in his Oration on the Son: "The things that are spoken of the Trinity in the singular behave in the opposite way in the incarnation of Christ; and again, those things which are stated of the Trinity in the number of the plural are stated of the incarnation in the singular." For example: we are taught to profess one nature in the holy and consubstantial Trinity; one will, one operation; but in the incarnation of one of the same Trinity, [we are taught to profess] two natures united hypostatically, and endowed with the faculty of willing and doing. C Hence, we who think rightly, following the divine Gregory, assert different operations and wills in Christ. For he says: "What is said of the Trinity in the singular behaves oppositely in the incarnation. For in the Trinity there is 'other and other,' [distinct person and distinct person], but in Christ there is not 'other and other,' but 'other thing and other thing' [distinct nature and distinct nature]; and in the Trinity there is not 'other thing and other thing'." But those who are Egyptian in their mindset did not know or understand these things; they walk in darkness, saying that all things which are added and stated of Christ apply to the whole holy Trinity. D
Therefore, come, according to the script of this tragic fable, let two choirs of thymelic hetairai be formed, and without intermission sing to one another in the manner of the stage those pronouncements concerning Christ; let one group speak, and the other, responding, attribute them to the Trinity. And if you wish for me to join in your playing and mocking, I will now open the tragedy. I say: "The Word became flesh." The Severians respond: "The Trinity became flesh." For all things of Christ befit the Trinity. I say: "Mary, mother of Christ." The orchestra of Severus sings back: "Mary, mother of the Trinity." We are saying the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in the
A manger. The stage-players say that "The Trinity lay as an infant in the manger." I pipe to you again, and you danced; I lament to you, and you beat your breasts. I say: "Christ was tempted in the flesh." You, dancing, say: "The Trinity was tempted in the flesh." I profess the circumcision of Christ’s flesh; the Severians sing back: "The circumcision of the Trinity." I say: "Christ is buffeted." The orchestra of Severus cries out: "The Trinity is buffeted." I say: "Christ was made a curse." The Severians respond: "The Trinity was made a curse." The Church says: "Christ is betrayed." The Severians say: "The Trinity was betrayed." We say that "Jesus wept and labored in the flesh." The Severians say: "The Trinity wept and labored." I say: "Christ suffered in the flesh." The Severians say: "The Trinity has suffered." The Church says: "Christ has died." The Severians say: "The Trinity has died," because all things that are said concerning Christ result in [affecting] the Trinity. But I, as I arrange these things, fear that I might be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the blasphemy, or, in recording such things in writing, that I might become a partaker in so great a blasphemy.
B Perhaps the Acephalus, shaking his head, will answer to these things that only those things which are essentially said of Christ are to be attributed to the whole Trinity. But it is easy to counter-argue, nonetheless, that your dogma is not free from impiety and depravity. For how would you be able to say: "One person of the Trinity has been incarnate"? How is the Trinity a single hypostasis in two natures? How are there two generations in the Trinity? How [can there be] two natures and properties [in the Trinity]? How is the Trinity visible and invisible, just as Christ is? But if all things that exist in Christ exist also in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, it follows that all things which exist in them exist also in Christ. And from this it will result that Christ is one nature existing in three hypostases or persons—the same being both begotten and proceeding, begetter and result of begetting, C according to the impiety of the wretched Sabellius, into whose impiety those who assert that nature and hypostasis are one and the same necessarily fall. For it is the same thing for them to say that the nature of the Trinity was incarnate, if nature and hypostasis are one and the same. But, as it seems, the heretics have no concern, even if they cast themselves into infinite precipices, provided that they can attack and lacerate the orthodox faith with calumnies. But it stands fixed and unshaken upon the foundation of the orthodox rock, against which the gates of Hades—that is, the tongues of the heretics—indeed make an impression, but do not prevail at all, by the grace of Him who founded it, Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
CAP. XVI.
A Of Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, regarding that apostolic saying which speaks of Christ, that "In him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily."If the godhead is uncircumscribed and devoid of quantity, it cannot be that the term "fullness" is used of it, nor the word "all." For that which is full and possesses fullness clearly has quantity, circumscription, and state; as when one says "Christ is the fullness of the law," that is, "Christ is the end of the law." And again, "the fullness of time," and "the fullness of the gentiles of the earth"—it cannot be above the "all." For "all" signifies quantity; for instance, the "all" of time, the "all" of the world, the "all" of the heaven, and the "all" of the water. The godhead is, and is called, above the "all," possessing no fullness, but B surpassing all fullness.
How, then, shall we understand the "all fullness of the godhead" in Christ? For he himself also said: "I am not alone, but my Father is with me," and, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me." What, then, shall we say? Is it that the fullness of the three hypostases became flesh personally, and dwelt among us? By no means. For the Word, having become flesh, appeared upon the earth. But since the mystery of the incarnation of the Son was accomplished by the good pleasure and sending of the Father, and by the cooperation and overshadowing of the all-holy Spirit, for this very reason it is said that all the fullness of the godhead is in him, according to C all the natural properties of the Trinitarian godhead, not according to the hypostatic ones; for the unbegotten person of the Father was not incarnate, nor the processionary hypostasis of the holy Spirit, but rather the inseparable mystery of the Trinity.
Thus also the holy Dionysius said that the Father and the holy Spirit are in Christ according to a common will, or according to good pleasure and approval; they are not separated and divided by local circumscription and division, as if they were three thrones, like Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. For the mystery of the Trinity is from one another undivided, indistinguishable, and entirely inseparable. But since, in the advent and appearance of the Word, the Son, who is also the Word, became Christ—that is, "the anointed"—whereas he who anointed him was the Father, and the "chrisma" or ointment was the holy Spirit himself; for this reason it is said that all the fullness of the godhead dwells in him D bodily. For in everyone who is made a "christ"—that is, an anointed one—the action and concurrence of three things is required: namely, of the anointer, the anointed, and the oil of anointing; things which, even if they are not united hypostatically, are nevertheless joined together by mutual operation. Wherefore some of the Fathers
A are known. And so one of the holy Fathers says that for this reason the Father was not incarnate, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son, so that no confusion of the hypostatic properties might arise in the holy Trinity. For if the Father had been born on earth, he would be found to be a Son-Father. Therefore, in a manner befitting God, the Son who is above is begotten, and the Son who is below is begotten, so that even after the birth, the unbegottenness of the Father and the procession of the most holy Spirit might be preserved in the Trinity.
CHAPTER XVII.
An objection, or rather the ignorance, of a Severian against the Catholic Church.
• If there is one nature of the holy Trinity; and this same nature subsists perfect and indeficient in the hypostasis of the Son, and the Son has been incarnate; does it not clearly follow from this that the whole fullness of the divinity has been incarnate, according to that which is said: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily"?Response. The whole B entity of the Trinity is not seen in the proper hypostasis of the Word, as the confusion of Sabellius ordains; for the Word does not have the unbegottenness of the Father, nor the power of begetting, nor is he without beginning; nor is he seated at his own right hand, nor does he bear anyone in his bosom, nor does he have the procession of the Spirit, nor other hypostatic properties of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Just as the Father is not begotten, so also the Son is not; nor is the Son in turn without cause, nor proceeding, nor sending the Father, according to which he was sent by the Father. Wherefore, the hypostasis of the Son having been incarnate, did not at the same time incarnate or clothe with flesh the unbegottenness of the Father, nor the proceeding hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. But since all the natural and common attributes of the Trinity—that is to say, the unoriginate, the uncreated, the uncircumscribed, the immutable, the everlasting, the good, the life-giving, and all such things—are seen invariantly, equally, and similarly in the Son, as they are in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, for this reason it has been said that all the fullness of the divinity dwells in him; and according to this, Christ is said to be perfect in divinity. C Just as, therefore, although he was perfect in humanity, he did not assume all the personalities of men in the incarnation: for he does not have the unbegottenness of Adam; nor that of Eve, which is to be formed from a rib; nor the stature of giants; nor the appearance of Ethiopians. For these are hypostatic properties. D
A But because He voluntarily took upon Himself all things that are common and natural to man—that is, the created, the visible, the corruptible, the mortal, and whatever else in us is not blameworthy, just as Paul cries out—for this reason we acknowledge Him to be perfect in humanity also. Therefore, the whole fullness of divinity and humanity is seen in Christ with regard to natural properties; for if someone were to dye his own fingernail with a purple color, he does not thereby dye his flesh and the bone of the finger with a purple color, even though these three are inseparably joined to one another. Consequently, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, according to hypostasis, were dyed together with the Son, nor clothed with flesh. Nevertheless, as though in the sight of God, I proclaim a great curse upon everyone who says that nature is hypostasis; for he colludes with the impieties of Sabellius, Arius, and Nestorius. For even if the true Morning Star is surrounded by a cloud, you cannot say that all the stars were surrounded by this cloud according to their own particular hypostases, but only according to the common property of the nature of light.
B Scholium. The rest will be found in the final quaternion.
Into these abysses of impiety fall the heretics, because they philosophize about nature and hypostasis according to the manner of Aristotle; for he said that properties/particulars of nature are hypostases. Now, the blessed Fathers make use of the example of a man in Christ, wishing, in a sort of outline drawing (or shadow-sketch), to indicate in Christ both that which is visible and that which is invisible, that which is mortal and that which is immortal, that which is subject to touch and that which escapes touch. But the evil-minded followers of the Monophysites, having taken the occasion from the holy Fathers, do not use this example of man any longer as a certain image brought forward to explain the matter, but contend to demonstrate therefrom a natural equality.
CHAPTER XVIII
Chapter concerning the example taken from the constitution and composition of man: and how the followers of Severus wrongly understand and interpret these things, teaching that, from two partial and imperfect natures, the one nature of the divinity and humanity of Christ is constituted according to the cited example of man. D For they heard Severus saying, "Just as in the one nature of man, one part of it is the soul and another is the body, so too in Christ, and of His one nature, the divinity occupies the role of a part, and the body does too." But this is nothing else than to confess that Christ is constituted of two imperfect things—from an imperfect divinity and from an incomplete humanity—and that He is not perfect in divinity, but a certain semi-god and semi-man. But we...A refuting their absurdity, shall arrange our defense against them in this way. And first, we will say that things are not in all respects like their examples; for even the worm is said in Scripture to be a type of Christ, and the lion, and the sheep, and the lamb, and the palm, and the apple, and the lily, none of which can be considered similar to Christ according to their own natural substance. Secondly, we will say to them: if the example which you bring forward to us concerning Christ were one thing, and that which Christ assumed when He came to us were another, perhaps you would have been able to offer something here that was not entirely alien to reason. But since Christ has united the example itself, namely human nature—that is, our two partial natures, as you say—to Himself hypostatically, it results that you constitute two natures in Christ: one, indeed, the perfect nature of the divine Word; the others, however, halved, namely those of our soul and body.
Furthermore, it will not be difficult in other, many ways to detect the dissimilarity of the example brought from the composition of man. For man consists of two created things, namely, I say, of soul and body; but Christ consists of uncreated divinity and created humanity. Man is composed of two circumscribed things; Christ of a circumscribed body and an uncircumscribed divinity. B Man is put together from a material and intellectual part, but Christ from the divine Word and a humanity that partakes of reason and is rational according to its existence. Nor did the body exist before the soul, nor the soul before the body. But the divine Word existed before all ages, and before souls and bodies. You will find thousands of other such things in the nature of the divinity that do not apply either to the soul or to the body. But if Severus strives to prove that there is equality in all things between the composition of man and the ineffable union of Christ, let the ignorant man learn that whoever wishes to examine the constitution of man more accurately will find that he is composed not only of two natures, but of more. For the body is fashioned from four simple natures or elements; the soul, however, is a nature distinct C from these; the nature of the divine Word is, likewise, different. Thus the example of man for Christ ought to be accepted as an example, not as an argument for equality.
CAP. XIX.
Opposition of the wicked Paulianist against the Severian, who contends that the principle of Christ is entirely equal to that which is in the composition of man.
PAULIANIST. Severus, attempting to demonstrate that Christ is a partial God and a partial man, and that He is one nature fashioned from two imperfect natures, continuously thrusts upon us and sings of the example of man; whereas neither Mosaic, nor prophetic, nor evangelical Scripture ever testifies that the soul and body of man are the form and example of the composition of Christ. Forsooth, since D
A he abandons the types of the divine Scriptures concerning Christ, he fashions for himself myths of his own. For in Holy Scripture, the divine Isaac is a type of Christ, and indeed a prototype expressed and delineated by God, as is the ram sacrificed in his stead, clearly B prefiguring the image of his two heterogeneous persons. The choir of the venerable Fathers does not acknowledge only this type as being referred to Christ, but many others as well; I mean the holy Moses, and the basket in which he was cast by his own mother and abandoned in the river's current. The divine Scripture, again proclaiming to us the two hypostases of Christ, C through Moses and the basket, does so just as the other chest, made of indestructible wood and gold, provides us with an effective type of the different natures, or rather the hypostases, of Christ. And what indeed does the golden pot, which holds the heavenly manna, seem to hint to Severus, if not the distinct and separate hypostases of Christ? D Likewise, the two turtledoves, of which the one was sacrificed and the other not sacrificed, clearly bear the figure of the two persons of Christ—I mean of his impassible divinity and his passible flesh. Just as, again, the two goats, the one sacrificed and the other sent away into the desert, clearly speak to us of the difference in the characteristic hypostases of Emmanuel, who subsists in the form of God and in the form of man. But if Severus, and those with him who deny the incarnation of the Savior, are stung and mangled by hearing these things, they must absolutely admit that examples do not always correspond in every respect to the things themselves. Therefore, O foolish ones, do not apply the example of man to the union and incarnation of Christ in unchangeable likeness and equality, to the end that you might overturn either of his natures.
Scholium. Christ consists of two immortal things, the Word and the soul, and one mortal thing, the body; and how, given such great difference and undifferentiated diversity of substance, can one nature be constituted?
To know these things, which were spoken by heretics against heretics, is beneficial, and it is fitting to drive out the nail of the wicked with a nail.
Chapter XX. Various questions against the Acephali.
Quæstio ORTHODOXI. Do you confess that the divine Word was united according to an indivisible and ineffable hypostasis in the Incarnation to the bowels and heart of the all-immaculate Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary, or was it merely an inhabitation, according to the likeness of other men, as in some tabernacle or house, as Nestorius desires?
ACEPHALUS. It is evident that we confess the divine Word to have been united, according to his ineffable and indivisible hypostasis, to the substance, womb, and bowels of the Mother, even as the holy Fathers have preached.
A ORTHODOX. This is how the truth stands; this is how we believe, and this is how we preach. Tell me then, I beseech you, oh excellent man: since the divine Word was united according to his hypostasis to the bowels, flesh, and marrow of the all-praised Theotokos, and was incarnated indivisibly and inseparably, and was as it were ingrafted and concreted to her immaculate and undefiled existence, while she bore Him in the womb united to her according to his hypostasis, and for the space of nine months at that—was the Virgin and the God-Word who was united to her flesh according to his hypostasis one nature, or two natures? And if you think that the nature of the woman and the God-Word is one, tell me, what part of this one nature did Christ take when He was separated from his Mother in the birth, and what part remained in the Virgin? But if there are not one, but two natures, the Virgin and the God-Word, after the hypostatic union was accomplished in her womb, why do you cry out in vain and incessantly that it is impossible for there to be two natures after the hypostatic union?
Another question. The transition from place to place does not befit an uncircumscribed nature; for the Word and God fills heaven and earth. Since Christ was incarnated, therefore, and born of the holy Virgin, how did He come forth and how was He separated from her? For if you say that He was separated from his Mother in the birth by his flesh alone and nakedly, you are already falling into the error of Nestorius. But if He was separated from his Mother by both flesh and divinity, how could the divinity, which was united according to his hypostasis to the bowels and heart of the holy Virgin, be separated from her through the nativity?
B Another question. How do you judge the all-holy Spirit, having descended in the Jordan and remained in Christ? Did He remain according to essence and truth hypostatically, or according to some grace and sanctification, just as it is accustomed to remain in the prophets and those who are merely men, as the heretics hold?
ACEPHALUS. It is manifest that we confess the all-holy Spirit to have come upon Christ and remained in Him substantially, and not as He does in one of the prophets.
ORTHODOX. Tell me then, I beseech you, since as you say the Holy Spirit remained in Christ hypostatically, are the Word and the flesh and the Holy Spirit one nature, or two? D
A Another question for the same people. The divine Apostle says: "In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." It is plain, therefore, that in the union which happened in the most holy Virgin's womb, all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in her ineffably. Since, therefore, all the fullness of the undivided Godhead existed in her, I ask: was there one nature of the Virgin and of all that fullness of the undivided Godhead on account of the union, or two natures?
Another question. If, by reason of the inseparable and indivisible bond by which the divine Word and His ensouled flesh cohere, the nature of the divine Word and the flesh is one, it follows that the Cherubic throne and the Word who resides upon it are one and the same nature; because they cannot be separated from one another.
B Another question. [That which is] incorporeal with [that which is] incorporeal, and that which lacks matter with that which is devoid of matter, can be united more fittingly, more easily, and more inseparably, as being of the same kind, spiritual, and consubstantial with the consubstantial, than the incorporeal can be united with the material, the incorruptible with the corruptible, the impassible with the passible, and the uncircumscribed with the circumscribed. If, therefore, because of the inseparable union, the nature of the circumscribed and mortal flesh and of the uncircumscribed Word dwelling in the flesh is one, then much more will there be one hypostasis of God the Father and of the only-begotten Son who is inseparable from Him, if in your judgment the Son is inseparable from the bosom of the Father. For whatever unions of the created with the uncreated you might enumerate, I do not believe them to be closer than that mutual bond of subsistence of the kindred and immaterial divine hypostases, even though we believe that the consubstantial Trinity subsists in three inconfused hypostases.
Another question. To Severus, Timothy, and you who assert that the nature of Christ is only divinity: since Christ says to the disciples concerning Lazarus: "He is dead, and I rejoice that I was not there," how, [if He was] God, was He not there? Where is God not? Truly, God is not in the heart of Severus and in yours. Wherefore the holy angel also says of your hearts: "He has risen, He is not" in your souls.
D Scholium. Briefly, but usefully. Since the Monophysites frequently repeat and object the same things regarding the same subjects, it is necessary that we also repeat the testimonies of the holy Fathers against them. Therefore, just as we did in the second disputation with them (which you will find in the third tetrad or quire), we shall propose to them all the testimonies of the Gospel, Apostolic, Prophetic, and Mosaic Scripture, which are indications of Christ’s humility and are appropriate to the human nature of Christ; such as: "The Lord will raise up a Prophet for you." And that: "I was made like a man without help." And that: "Behold, my servant shall understand." And that: "He is a man, and who shall know him?"
A And again, the evangelical utterances, such as, "My Father is greater than I." And, "I can of my own self do nothing." And, "Me you have not always." And, "Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth?" And, "Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice that I was not there." And that which was said by the angel, that "He has risen, He is not here." And, "Jesus, the child, increased in wisdom and stature and grace." And, "He was subject to his parents." And that, "God raised up the Lord." And that, "He glorified His child Jesus," that is to say, His servant. And to sum it up briefly, whenever we ask them which low-sounding word from holy Scripture regarding Christ refers to which nature of Christ, they avoid calling the flesh of Christ a "nature," and say that these things are spoken of Christ according to his humanity, according to the assumption, according to the visible, according to the body, according to the flesh; they assign to his humanity innumerable names, but they cannot be brought to designate his humanity by the name of "nature." Then we ask them, "For what reason do you refuse to call the humanity of Christ a nature?" And they answer, saying, "If we call it a nature, we must of necessity also call it a person B and we would find ourselves confessing two persons, just as Nestorius did; for there is no nature without a person."
Question of the Orthodox regarding these things.
What then, O men? Is everyone who confesses the flesh of Christ to be a nature, as the Synod of Chalcedon also stated, a Nestorian? The Severians answer to this, saying: "Yes; for no nature is destitute of a person." When they utter this, we then bring forward to them the previously cited sayings of the holy Fathers, which even after the union call the flesh of Christ a "nature"; and we refute them, as wandering from the path of the holy Fathers and insisting on the footsteps of Severus; for they repudiate the doctrine of the holy Fathers and call them Nestorians, because they call the flesh of Christ a nature. All these things they do out of hatred for the Synod of Chalcedon. C Because of it they depart from the holy Fathers and wickedly adhere to Severus, their teacher, who delivered to them and persuaded them to repudiate that assertion which establishes two natures in Christ, however much it may be asserted by holy Cyril himself.
Since, therefore, as I said before, Severus observed that the term "two indivisible natures in Christ" came from the Fathers and was free from all reproach, D and being at a loss how to overthrow and remove it, he devises "excuses in sins," and writing to Nephalius and Simplicius, says that the naming of two...
natures A in Christ was rejected and condemned up to the times of Nestorius, but after that, having become one from the dual nature, it ought to be utterly rejected and disapproved; for he implies that the doctrine concerning Christ must be changed and modified according to the varying conditions of time. But I considered that I would be doing a worthwhile service if I were to refute the wickedness and malice of Severus anew from the Ephesian synod, celebrated under the divine presidency of Cyril, and demonstrate that before Nestorius there existed heresies B which perfidiously introduced a division in Christ; and yet the holy Fathers, who lived in the age of these very heresiarchs, nevertheless freely preached the two indivisible natures in Christ. Therefore, the first to divide Christ into two was Artemon, who lived two hundred years before the Nicene synod. After him, Origen also taught that Christ was merely a man; whom Paul of Samosata followed eighty years before the holy synod, and revived the heresy of Artemon. Again, after Paul and the holy synod, Theodore of Antioch, the teacher of Nestorius, and Diodorus, taught that Christ was two. After them came the impious Nestorius. How is it then, that in the times intervening between Artemon and Nestorius, none of the holy Fathers rejected the terminology of the two natures united in Christ? And that you may understand that this is the case, listen to the beginning and theme of the holy synod C at Ephesus, which contains the following.
Protestation publicly posted by the clergy of Constantinople, and made manifest throughout the Church, that Nestorius is of the same mind as Paul of Samosata.
"I adjure whoever receives this document, by the Holy Trinity, that they make it manifest to the bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, and laity dwelling in Constantinople; and furthermore, that they provide a copy of it for the clear confutation of the heretic Nestorius, that he is of the same mind as the condemned Paul of Samosata, who was anathematized 160 years ago by the orthodox bishops. The things said by each are as follows. Paul said: 'Mary did not bring forth the Word.' Nestorius D said: 'O good man, Mary did not bring forth the divinity.' Paul said: 'For it did not exist before the ages.' Nestorius said: 'They provide a temporal mother for the divinity that created the times.' Again Paul said: 'Mary received the Word, and is not older than the Word.' Nestorius said: 'How could Mary have brought forth one older than herself?' Paul said: 'Mary brought forth a man like unto us.' Nestorius said: 'He who was born from the Virgin is a man.' Paul said: 'But he is superior in all things, since the grace that is upon him is from the Holy Spirit, from the promises, and from the Scriptures.' Nestorius said: 'For I have seen,' he says, 'the Spirit descending like a dove, and remaining upon him—the [act of] taking up...'
A power of ascension granting unto him: since, commanding the apostles whom He had chosen through the Holy Spirit, He was taken up.' This, therefore, is what bestowed such great glory upon Christ. Paul said: 'Lest he who was anointed from the seed of David be thought alien to wisdom, nor should wisdom dwell in another in such a way. For it was in the prophets; or rather, in Moses, and in many masters; but more so in Christ, as in heaven.' And elsewhere he says that Jesus Christ is one thing, and the Word of God is another. Nestorius said: 'It is impossible for Him who was born once before all ages to be born again, and that, too, by divinity.'
Behold, by the testimony and assertion of the holy synod B, Severus is convicted of being a liar when he says that Nestorius was the first to be execrated for dividing Christ. Therefore, the holy Fathers who flourished in the times of Artemon, Paul, Diodorus, and Theodore, piously and unitedly confessed the two natures in Christ, just as Artemon, Paul, Theodore, Diodorus, and Nestorius confessed them divided. Thus, it is not impious to posit two [natures], but to posit them so divided that the hypostatic union does not remain intact.
CAP. XXI. Refutation of the vain and impious opinion of Severus, in which he says:
'To budding heresies, remedies and medicines of doctrine must be adapted: for it is not permitted, he says, if some physician should prohibit the drinking C of water while a pestilential disease is raging, for anyone to say to him: "The former physicians did not forbid the drinking of water." For he will immediately hear from the physician: "Fool, do you see the disease spreading far and wide, and do you wish to measure the sickness by the standard of robust health?"'
Such things were decreed and ordained by that noble Severus, whom the divine Basil prophetically refutes, and commands to be silent with stopped mouth, in his letter to Olympius the scholastic, who was an Arian, and who was stitching together such excuses as Severus also uses. To whom the holy Basil says D word for word: 'But they have devised a certain "wise" counsel by which to excuse these changes of theirs: namely, that one must use the terms of faith, in the manner of physicians who act in one way or another as the condition and occasion of the disease requires. But it is not for me to refute the vanity of this sophism, but for you to understand it. For God will give you understanding to perceive which is the true doctrine, and which is the crooked and distorted one. For if it is permitted to write other faiths, and to change them according to the time, then he who said "One Lord, one faith" is a liar.'
These things the Father set forth as if prophetically, for the shame and destruction of the legislation of Severus, existing many years before Severus. A
A brief recapitulation, showing what the author thinks concerning the incarnation.
Lest any of the foolish should think, because of what has been said above, that we are held by the mental blindness of the impious Nestorius, I shall briefly state what I think concerning Christ in soul and body. I confess that his most immaculate humanity, that is, soul and body, is so united to his immaculate divinity according to hypostasis, just as our own soul is united to our body through and through. And just as He who appeared to Nebuchadnezzar in the furnace of fire as a type of Christ, in the likeness of the Son of God, carried the form of a man through and through, igneous and cognate to fire—indeed, totally igneous and totally flaming—so also was the humanity of Christ, totally and through and through permeated by divinity, and divine and cognate to God. And just as if someone, having entered into that furnace, had circumcised, or slapped, or bound, or tonsured, or pierced Him who appeared in the form of the Son of God, he would in no way have separated or extinguished the fire from Him, because He was united through and through with the fire: so also, in the case of Christ the Son of God, from the time when the angel said to Mary, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you," the fire of divinity was never separated from His humanity at any time or in any affair, nor will it be separated throughout the eternity of eternity. B
Scholium. He spoke of a difference of glory, not of nature.
Moreover, we confess that the most holy body and soul of Christ possess a difference of glory and brightness from our souls and bodies, as much as that figure in the furnace excelled the other bodies which were outside the fire and the furnace. Whence we call His most holy body divine, and all things of the body divine, and His immaculate soul cognate to God; and all things that befit the soul, divine, and united with God: with each nature unconfusedly, immutably, and indivisibly preserving its own property in one composite person, as the blessed Fathers have piously handed down to us. But we also confess that the soul and flesh united to Him according to hypostasis are subjected to and governed by God, and all their properties are so, above all subjection of creation, as they are united to Him, the Word of God, more than any other creation. D
Explanation of the purpose of the chapters that follow.
Basil, whom the name of the heavenly kingdom befits and who is its partaker, says: "The word of truth is simple," that is, guileless, and most simple, and without malice. For all divine utterances are ready for the prudent, and to him who is free from malice.
A But into the heart of the foolish the wisdom of God shall not enter. And from this it follows that whatever they hear or read, they, being driven by the arrogance of their mind, hasten readily and swiftly to criticize and refute, out of a spirit that seeks to please men and is full of pride. For what, I ask you, is safer, or more divine, or truer than that saying of the Theologian who declares: "In the beginning was the Word" [John 1, 1]? And yet Arius, instigated by the devil, did not leave that divine saying intact and uncorrupted: "Well," he said, "did John speak: In the beginning was the Word; that is, the discourse or utterance of God. For he did not say: In the beginning was the Son, but the Word, which God brings forth and pronounces." Therefore, my most beloved brothers, he who is driven by the spirit of the devil is of such a kind as to seize upon every expression of Scripture and teaching; and I shall attempt to make this manifest immediately, for the sake of those who are about to seize upon this exposition of ours with malicious intent, whose judgment is manifest and whose punishment is inevitable.
Chapter XXII.
*Why one must dispute shrewdly and craftily with those who pervert the sayings of Scripture and the Fathers concerning Christ and twist them into a foreign meaning.*Divine wisdom wisely instructs those who undertake to speak the wisdom of God to others, saying: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest he seem to himself to be wise" [Prov. 26, 4]. B Now what the most wise Solomon intends to signify is this: If anyone, foolishly and mindlessly, attempts to pervert the divine Scriptures, and brings forward the ineffable and incomprehensible mysteries of God, questioning in this manner: "Whence is it clear that the Son of God is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds? And how is it possible for that which is begotten to be, like the Begetter, without beginning?" And, in a word, as often as someone with an evil mind brings these arcane and hidden things—which are understood C by faith alone, or rather, are believed and confessed, but not understood—into the middle of the discussion, do not answer him according to this curious infidelity of his, lest you yourself begin to scrutinize with him things that exceed all scrutiny and investigation, and which flee from the knowledge of all creatures; but answer him "according to his folly," by bringing forward to him what is commonly confessed by all Christians, and held, preached, and explained by the Church with simple faith—the very things which the recent deserters of the faith in the East have proposed to us, accumulating many things from the Law, the Gospels, and the Doctors, from the number of which are these:
1. Whence is it clear that our soul is created, or remains immortal, since this is nowhere testified to in the law? 2. The second doubt proposed by the deserters of the Church to the Christians: Who tells me that the book which is inscribed Genesis is by Moses? For it is not inscribed, as
A are the rest of the books, those of the prophets. Yet it contains many things that appear not to be true; among which are the decree of God regarding the eating [of the fruit], and the decree regarding the rains of the misery of Israel in Egypt; for they suffered for forty years each, that is, after the death of Joseph. Likewise, the limit which God spoke concerning the life of men did not happen for Noah. For he had said that those men would live for one hundred and twenty years until the flood.
3. B Again, when he had commanded that Levitical code full of fleshly things, afterwards God says through Isaiah and Jeremiah that He had commanded nothing to Israel concerning sacrifices, nor concerning burnt offerings.
4. Again, when he promised that the law would be an eternal ordinance, how did He not establish His legal precepts as eternal?
5. And having promised to give to the seed of Israel from Egypt as far as the Euphrates as a possession, He did not give them even the tenth part of the promise.
These are what they object from the Old Testament.
They follow with what they adduce from the New Testament.
1. Since the Gospel does not say that Christ rose from the dead with the tomb sealed, from where do you prove this?
2. C Since the Gospel calls Joseph the husband of Mary up and down, why do you not say this?
3. Just as the Gospel spoke of the seedless conception of Christ, why did it not also speak of the incorrupt bearing from a Virgin, as you say?
4. Since John calls Martha the sister of Mary, D the Mother of our Lord, why do you not say this?
5. Since Christ said that He would spend three whole days and three nights in Hades, without change, just like Jonah, why did He not spend them as Jonah did, just as He had previously spoken?
6. How is it that in one Evangelist He commands you to wear sandals and a staff, but in the other Evangelist He forbids the staff and the sandals?
7. Since the Evangelists say nothing, where did you learn that Christ was born in a cave? For this is not told in the Gospels.
8. If Jesus taught those things which He began to do, how is it that when He was struck on the cheek He did not turn the other, but even rebuked the one who struck Him?
A 9. When the Gospel says that Christ is something created or begotten, how do you say that one part of Him is created and another part uncreated? For Matthew says: *The book of the generation*, that is, of the making, *of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham*.
10. If you profess that God is uncircumscribed, who equally fills heaven and earth, how did the Word descend from heaven and ascend there again?
11. If the Divine Word was in the world by His divinity even before the incarnation, as the evangelist John writes, how do you say that He descended from heaven into the womb of the Virgin? For if He was here even before the incarnation, it is clear that He did not descend; but if He descended at the incarnation, it is evident that He was circumscribed in heaven, just as the angels are.
B 12. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, it is manifest that the same person is the Father of both, and that the Holy Spirit is also begotten. But if you do not admit this to be confessed, tell us: which came forth from the Father first, and which second, the Son or the Holy Spirit? But if they came forth at the same time, it is manifest that the Father brought forth twins, and that the Son and the Spirit are, as it were, brothers in the divinity. And what is the difference between generation and procession in the uncircumscribed, immutable, and inseparable divinity?
13. Whence is it clear that the Word of God is an hypostatic God, and likewise that the Spirit of God is God and an hypostasis of God, but that the mind of God is not another God, nor another hypostasis, nor the heart of God, nor the right hand of God, nor the arm of God, and the rest of the things which Scripture attributes to God?
14. How, when the disciples were eleven before the Lord’s ascension, does Paul say that after He rose from the dead He appeared to the twelve apostles? For Matthias had not yet been numbered with them, nor had Paul.
C 15. How, when Christ promised that to those who leave fields, wives, children, and money for His sake He would give a hundredfold in this life, does He not keep faith, just as He promised?
Let the prudent have these weapons ready against the frauds of the imprudent, whenever they see them contending malignantly and fraudulently with us, and attacking this book with an unconquered mind.
Therefore, the faith of Christians is inquisitive of nothing; it is accustomed to receive and hear the entire Divine Scripture—and especially the doctrine handed down by the Fathers—in simplicity and uprightness of heart. For the evangelical sayings, and the ap-
Aostolic, we know that they cannot be depraved, as we have already shown in various places, in that the Gospel is recorded in the letters of seventy-two languages and nations. Therefore, it is impossible for it to be corrupted by the wicked, either by subtraction or addition. For even if someone were to attempt to falsify the books in one or two languages, that villainy would be immediately exposed and refuted by the other seventy-two languages. See, then, that some have attempted to remove the drops of blood and sweat of Christ from the Gospel according to Luke, and they could not. For the codices that lack this are convicted of falsity by many other codices that contain all those things, both those written in Greek and those in the languages of other nations. But the writings of the holy Fathers, and especially the dogmatic ones, have not been translated into the languages of all nations, nor have they been carried to all regions. Whence it comes about that heretics have found occasion to add certain things and indeed to remove others in them. Which we ourselves have learned by experience itself. But in order that what we have already said may become clearer, we will recount by way of example certain instances of depravations occurring in the writings of the Fathers.
Solum Deus ingenitus est ac increatus. B And yet we find in Saint Dionysius, in a chapter inscribed "Concerning the Great and the Small," the following said about God: "Need-less, which can neither be increased nor diminished, ingenerate—not as if not yet begotten, or as if imperfect, or as if not begotten by this or that, nor as if it were nowhere or in no way, but as being above every ingenerate thing." By saying, "above every ingenerate thing," he signified many ingenerate, or uncreated, things. And yet, how is this possible? For no one is ingenerate except God alone. This passage, then, a certain Manichaean brought forward, wishing to show that the angels, and the soul, and the waters are also uncreated, that is to say, ingenerate.
Again, whereas the Church teaches that all the holy angels are of one substance, the same divine and apostolic Dionysius C names the supernal powers "many substances." But the great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who was raised from the number of the rhetoricians, in the scholia which he wrote on his namesake Dionysius, speaks thus: that "external philosophy is accustomed to call every invisible nature 'ingenerate,' and similarly 'substances' for 'hypostases.'" And he says that in these places such words are used by the holy Dionysius in an accommodated sense, according to the outsiders; so that we ought not to interpret the words of the saints thoughtlessly and according to what seems good to us, as some are accustomed to do at this present time. D Again, it is also said by the blessed Basil in his sermon on the *Hexaemeron* that "everything that has a beginning necessarily has an end; for when you speak to me of a beginning, do not doubt concerning the end." Which saying the most vain Origenists again bring forward to us, wishing to demonstrate the pre-existence of souls in the heavens before the bodies, just as they also bring forward not a few testimonies under the names of Gregory of Nyssa and the Nazianzen, regarding the restoration of the punishment.
And they interpret these things in a manner suitable for their own opinion. I have not discussed these matters rashly or in vain, but with a view to those who, stripped of the light of knowledge, stumble at the small sayings and testimonies of the Fathers and, plunged into darkness, rush headlong, composing most empty treatises against the Catholic Church, by which they strive to weaken and overturn the incarnation of the Word from the Virgin.
The Origenists bring forward sayings of the Theologian from his Oration on the Theophany; and again, A of the Nyssen, from his discourse on virtue, and on the Nativity of Christ, and on the Beatitudes, and on the Canticles, and from other discourses. But in order that it may shine forth more clearly that the monuments of the Fathers ought to be read and heard with the fear of God and with a simple mind, I shall add the following to what has been said. When the Gaianites and Theodosians and Eutychianists constantly object to Cyril, as though he recognized only one nature in Christ: the heretic, striving to show that Cyril supports Nestorius as much as possible, even if he does so in ignorance, is caught in the snare which he himself set; by this very fact, that from the beginning of the fourth chapter written by the blessed Cyril, he cites these words: "If anyone divides Christ into two persons or hypostases, let him be anathema."
To these things Andrew thus replies: C "How excellent is this judgment. How pious is this explanation of Cyril concerning dogmas. Behold, in the manner of the Fathers, and most especially of the synods, he hands down that hypostases are persons, following the Fathers of the Nicene Council, who say: There are three hypostases or persons in the most holy and consubstantial Trinity. If, therefore, he rightly asserts that hypostases are persons, by what reasoning does he himself, in almost all his own writings, call natures hypostases? For when he calls natures hypostases, and hypostases, in turn, persons, what else does he profess but that there are diverse persons in Christ? As when he says 'the natures, or hypostases, have remained unmixed.' Whose hypostases, O excellent Cyril? Clearly, Christ's; since you so define hypostases. But if this definition that hypostases are persons did not proceed from you, D someone might perhaps have been able, for the sake of defending you, to say that Cyril, by the name of hypostases, does not understand persons, but certain subsistences of substantial things; but since you have brought forward such a definition against yourself, no place for defense is left to you henceforth. Therefore, when you say that Christ’s natures, or hypostases, have remained unmixed, you say nothing else than that the hypostases, or persons, have remained unmixed. Whence, from this law laid down by you, namely, that natures are hypostases or persons, it follows that there are three natures in the three persons of the most holy Trinity, as the Arians contend; but two persons in the two natures of the only-begotten Son. Therefore, when you say in your treatise *On Worship in Spirit*: of the two natures or hypostases of Christ
And as when you say in those things concerning the worship in the Spirit that the ark will be a type to us of the natures of Christ, that is, of the hypostases; and again in another place you state thus in dry language, that you profess Christ to be from two natures, that is to say, from two hypostases or persons. It is clear that you are saying the body of Christ pre-existed and was pre-formed in the womb of the Virgin, and that then the person of the Word of God was united to it; just as you say again in the third of your twelve chapters: "If anyone after the ineffable union divides the hypostases." And yet, although you call natures "hypostases" in countless other places, in the books to Hermias you contradict yourself and disagree with yourself, asserting that nature is one thing and hypostasis, or person, is another. And how, when Theodoret set out to refute your twelve chapters, did you not defend in your apologies what you assert in the third chapter regarding hypostases of this kind? Therefore, being inconsistent, you contradict yourself and slay your own arguments; at one time asserting one nature of Christ, at another time two persons. For indeed, in your written B scholia, interpreting the stater which Peter found in the mouth of the fish, you write thus: "Therefore, the true stater is Christ. For he is a twofold character." Much grace, then, to the eloquent Cyril, who everywhere confesses diverse characters and hypostases in Christ.
You have heard, brethren, the insults of the wicked dragon Andrew, which he vomited forth from a heart full of Nestorian venom against the most wise teacher Cyril, because he said that natures are hypostases. Whether such words are truly those of that holy Father, or of others, I cannot say. For the entire company of the holy Fathers, and holy Cyril himself in various places, say that nature is one thing and hypostasis another; and the Catholic Church, having followed this rule, teaches that Christ consists of two united natures, but by no means dares to profess or establish two hypostases or persons in Him; nor does it hand down that He is composed of two hypostases or persons, for a hypostasis is nothing other than a person in its own right. C But nowhere have we known the holy flesh to subsist apart from the divine Word; for it did not pre-exist in the womb, but divinity and the flesh, informed by a rational soul, came together at the same time. For this is what is accustomed to be called the hypostatic union. The accursed Andrew, therefore, poured forth the aforementioned calumnies against the holy Father Cyril.
Maro [Maris] the Edessene, who himself also holds the views of Nestorius, writing against Severus, says the following: "We, to whom the light of piety has arisen, do not so much turn away from Dioscorus and Theodosius as we do with the best right detest the blasphemous synod of Chalcedon. For that synod did not say there are hypostases in Christ, just as Severus, and his father Cyril, and Dioscorus, and Theodosius freely confess two hypostases in Christ, and say that He consists of two hypostases or persons; D since even..."
A hypostases of Christ inconfuse. For thus the Egyptian Cyril writes: "The hypostases of Christ remained inconfuse." But if the hypostases of Christ, that is, the persons, remained inconfuse, it becomes plain that they can also be known and considered as inconfuse, and that they endure as inconfuse for all eternity. And how did they remain inconfuse? I deem that worthy of admiration, that he did not say they remained also undivided, but only inconfuse, that is, widely resplendent. And he closes them in the binary number, but remained silent about the number, so that he might have license to imagine a multitude of hypostases in Christ. Thus, while he seems to B himself to be honoring the birth of the Virgin with great honor, he blasphemed petulantly, because sometimes indeed he calls the Virgin's birth natural: at other times, as in his twelve chapters, he says that the Virgin gave birth carnally to the Word made flesh. To him we reply that the Virgin did not give birth carnally, but in a manner befitting God. These things the impious heretics blatter against the godly Father. But we revere and accept him as the light and pillar of the Church.
Scholium. Severus and Gaianus were initially in agreement, and followed the same opinion, and dwelt together in the eighteenth district of Alexandria. One day, therefore, Gaianus questioned C Severus: "Whether the body of Christ ought to be called corruptible or incorruptible?" And upon Severus answering that "it was corruptible before the resurrection from the dead," Gaianus immediately broke away from him, thinking that if anyone asserts the body of Christ is corruptible, it is necessary to confess two natures in Christ. This is the cause for which they are separated.
CHAPTER XXIII.
On the faith of the Gaianites.
The Gaianites, Julianists, and Nagranites have one and the same faith, just as, on the other hand, do the Severians, Jacobites, Theodosians, and Dioscorites. But these latter, I mean the followers of Severus and Jacob, even if they most strongly assert one nature in Christ, nevertheless confess two properties in Him, namely, divine and human. They also teach that His body was passible before the passion. D But the Gaianites think that the body of Christ is devoid of corruption and is divine, from the very beginning of the union, and that only one property is found in Him, namely the divine and impassible. You should know, however, that they cannot produce any one of the approved Fathers who teaches that Christ was in every way immortal from the very moment of the union, but they fashion these things from their own brains and from the instruction of their own masters; filching from the commentaries of the Fathers certain testimonies and, as it were, scraps of their discourses. Wherefore, in the disputation that follows, we have thought it best to contend with them through proofs drawn from the matters themselves.
A
Disputation of a Gaianite and an Orthodox, held at Alexandria: the form of which you also should imitate.
ORTHODOX. Are things more worthy of belief than words, or are words more reliable than things?
GAIANITE. It is manifest, I think, that things are more worthy of belief than words.
ORTHODOX. You have answered rightly, according to the rule of truth and piety. Tell me, then, I beseech you, if, as divinity does, the body of Christ also possesses immortality from the very beginning of the union, is the communion of the most holy body and blood of Christ which you offer and partake of, truly the very body and blood of Christ the Son of God, or is it mere bread, such as is sold from house to house, and a configuration of the body of Christ, as the sacrifice of the goat which the Jews offer?
GAIANITE. God forbid that we should say the holy communion is merely a configuration of the body of Christ, or mere bread; but we truly receive the very body and blood of Christ the Son of God, who was incarnate and born of the holy Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary.
ORTHODOX. We believe thus, and we confess thus, according to the voice of Christ himself, who, when giving to his disciples the life-living bread at the mystical supper, said: "Take, eat; this is my body." B Likewise, giving them the cup, he says: "This is my blood." He did not say: "This is a configuration of my body and blood." And in many other places Christ also is seen saying: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." Since, then, Christ himself testifies that it is truly his body and blood which we faithful take and partake of, come, bring us some of the communion of your Church—since you say it is Orthodox and above all other Churches—and we shall deposit this holy body and C blood of Christ in a vessel with all honor and reverence. And if within a few days it is not corrupted, or changed, or altered, it will be manifest that you rightly proclaim Christ to have been in all respects from the very beginning of that union in incorruptibility. But if it is corrupted or altered, it will be necessary for us to say one of two things: either that what you take is not the true body of Christ, but a configuration and something merely vicarious, or that, because of your perverse faith, the Holy Spirit D did not descend upon it; or else that the body of Christ was subject to corruption before the resurrection, inasmuch as it was sacrificed, delivered to death, wounded, divided, and eaten. For an incorruptible nature is neither cut, nor wounded in its side and hands, nor divided into parts, nor given up to death, nor is it eaten, nor is it grasped or touched at all; as is the case with the incorruptible nature of the angels and of souls.
A GAIANITE. And how do we find many of the holy Fathers saying that the body of Christ is incorruptible? ORTHODOX. Incorruptible and corruptible are used in two ways in the divine Scriptures, as we have already said before in the definitions. Sometimes according to the body, sometimes according to the soul. Whence Genesis says: "God saw, and behold all flesh was corrupt," that is, all men were addicted to wickedness; of whom David also sings: "They are become corrupt and abominable in their iniquities and pursuits." With respect, therefore, to this corruption of sin, we profess the most holy and most immaculate body of Christ to be incorruptible, that is, free from sin. But that the body of Christ is incorruptible in any other way at all, no one of the holy Fathers ever asserted. Whence also the thrice-blessed Athanasius writes these words literally concerning the Lord’s body: "The body was corruptible, because Mary was also a creature." By what reasoning, then, will it be permitted to affirm that the body of Christ is of the same substance as we are, or that Christ has shared in flesh and blood with the children, or that He has taken the seed of Abraham, or that He has been tempted and proved in all things according to our likeness, if indeed it were incorruptible from the first moment of union, as you contend?
B And from these things it is clear that the most holy body of Christ was subject to corruption before the passion; but after the resurrection, it was incorruptible, for the reason that before the passion it was subject to various natural discharges, I mean, of blood, sweat, spittle, and tears. But after His resurrection from the dead, although He ate by way of dispensation to confirm the faith of the disciples, nevertheless He was immune from every excretion and secretion; for it is not read that He expectorated, wept, sweated, or shed blood; nor did He live any longer with sinners, nor did He sleep, nor did He thirst, nor did He hunger; but after the resurrection He ate in such a way as fire consumes wax, and just as the angels ate when received as guests by Abraham. Wherefore, before the passion, Christ did not appear clothed in different forms and with a changing look of his countenance, as He did after the resurrection, presenting Himself in one form to the Magdalene, and in another to Cleopas and his companion, and in another by the sea C of Tiberias. Again, before the passion, although He was able to do so, He was not seen at the same hour in different places, lest it should be thought to be a vain spectrum and a phantasm; but He moved from place to place after the common manner of bodies. But after the resuscitation from the dead, with His body now endowed with agility, subtlety, and incorruption, He was able without any obstacle both to go out of a sealed sepulchre and to enter through closed doors; and at the same hour of that day on which He rose, when it was already evening, in Jerusalem, and to the disciples going to Emmaus He appeared. If, however, from...
this very perfect union in every way, He was likewise incorrupt, why on earth, even before the passion, did Christ not appear in every place at one and the same hour in the flesh, and in different locations, and forms, and appearances of countenance? Why on earth did He not also spit and weep after His resurrection? Hence from all these things, it is clear that the holy body of Christ was corruptible before the passion; but after His resurrection, it was incorrupt.
GAIANITA. Even if Christ wept for Lazarus, yet see that those tears of His, as incorrupt and divine, raised the dead. And even if He spat, yet His spittle restored sight to the blind man. And even if He shed blood from His side, yet by it He saved the world. And even if He was crucified, yet as God He darkened the sun.
ORTHODOXUS. No one doubts that the immaculate body of Christ, through the union with the Word, became holy, and divine, and omnipotent, and capable of working wonders. But let us hear the great Gregory of Nyssa saying that neither the human nature of Christ vivified Lazarus, nor did the impassible power weep for the deceased; but the tears were of the man, and the life was that of the true Life. If, however, as you dogma¬tize, the miracles were not of the divinity, but of the body of Christ, He would have had to perform miracles straight from the cradle. For He wept countless times as a child, and countless times, having become a man, He spat; for He was tested in all things like us, as Paul says (Heb. iv, 15), sin alone excepted. Behold, therefore, when He accepted circumcision, He did not wish to perform any miracle through that blood poured forth from His divine flesh. As for that which you bring forward: "Thou wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption" (Psal. xv, 10), know that corruption is the total abolition of substance; this could not fall upon the body of the Lord in the tomb, which was guarded by the divinity; but it was gifted with immortality and restored to such a state as was the body of Adam before the transgression.
From the discourse of Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, [note: regarding the see, see facsimile] On Resurrection and Incorruption.
"In the resurrection, men will be," he says, "as the angels of God; that is to say, they will be in incorruption and immortality and impassibility. For an incorrupt nature does not beget, nor is it begotten; it does not grow, does not sleep, does not hunger, does not thirst, does not tire, does not suffer, does not die, nor is it pierced by nails or a lance, nor does it sweat, nor does it shed blood. Such are the natures of the angels and of souls freed from bodily bonds. For both these natures are of another kind, and different from the creatures of this world, which fall under the sight [of men]."
THE HERETIC. But he who holds the contrary argues, saying that
"Christ voluntarily and by determination accepted the sufferings. Those things which occur voluntarily and by determination are not referred to the law of nature." A
ORTHODOX response. Therefore, since the Word of God descended voluntarily from heaven, his descent should not be called true. Since he was voluntarily incarnate, his body should not be called nature, nor his birth his birth, nor his time his time, nor his race his race, nor his passion his passion, nor his death his death, nor his resurrection his resurrection, nor his ascension his ascension. For he underwent or took upon himself all these things voluntarily and by his own will, not being compelled by any necessity to put on humanity. This evasion was devised by the Manichaeans. B
Another explanation and clear solution for the phrase which says, "One nature of the Word of God incarnate," for those who hold the views of Severus.
Just as if three consubstantial and uncircumscribed luminaries were shining in the firmament of heaven, no one of sound mind would call them three natures of light, but three hypostases of consubstantial light, having a connatural, homogeneous, and of-the-same-kind, undivided light; so too in the mystery of the Trinity, the Word of God is called a hypostasis, not a nature, just as the Father and the Holy Spirit are also. And just as if one of those three luminaries were to be united to a cloud and were to assume it uncircumscribed, that luminary in it would thenceforth be called also a hypostasis, as being one of the three hypostases of light. It would also be called a nature, by comparison with the cloud of a different kind and different essence united to it. Thus then understand the utterance of the God-wise Cyril, when he says in the union of the flesh, "One nature of the Word of God incarnate." If, C however, you thoughtlessly seize upon this phrase and contend that the hypostasis of the Word is called a nature, you are necessarily compelled to call the Father of the divine Word a "nature" peculiar to himself; and similarly the Holy Spirit himself will be another peculiar nature. For having dogmatized and thought in this way, Severus was plunged into the Arian abyss of tritheism. D Even a naked man is called one hypostasis out of all; but if he puts on a garment, he can also be called a nature because of the different nature of the garment of a different kind which he has put on. And Gabriel, to take an example, being one of the angelic hypostases, if he were to assume flesh, could also be called a nature, because of the union with flesh which is of a different substance from Gabriel. And the rational soul, for instance that of Paul, considered precisely in itself and free from the concretion of flesh, is called one hypostasis of the common essence of human souls, and not a nature. But if now it is united to its own body before the resurrection, it can, because of the difference and the earthly mass of the flesh, in a certain pious way be called also a nature. Wherefore even from two natures the human
A composition has been said by the blessed Fathers to exist.
But the Acephali attack us also on this point, saying: "If man consists of two natures, and the God-Word assumed this, you will be found to be confessing three natures in Christ." To them it must be said that from this you are refuted, denying the Word of the incarnation and confessing that the God-Word did not truly assume either body or soul. If, however, you say that he is altogether perfect in humanity, just as he is in divinity, you yourselves are also found to be saying that Christ consists of three natures. But just as a tree, though having many differences of quality—I mean root, branches, leaves, flower, fruit—is called one nature, so also the whole man, as the brother of the Lord, James, says, [is "one nature"] for "every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of B sea creatures is tamed by the human nature."
Solution, that is, the overturning of the Monophysite proposition which says: "If the incarnate hypostasis of the God-Word is perfect divinity, and in it all the fullness of the holy Trinity is seen, then all things which are confessed in the Son in the economy are also attached to the whole Trinity, whether two natures, or wills, or operations. But those who do not think so are found," they say, "to give to the holy Trinity three individual natures, but one common one."
We have indeed spoken a few things concerning this shortly before; but lest we also, like the heretics, by fabricating our own myths fall under that divine curse which says: "Woe to those who prophesy out of their own heart, C and not from God," come, let us like David strike with one stone fixed in the forehead of Goliath the whole army of the aliens, stopping the mouths of those who say that whatever is attributed to one of the holy Trinity, namely Christ, is also accounted to the whole Trinity.
Chapter XXIV.
The words of the holy apostolic teacher Dionysius the Areopagite, from the chapter regarding confluent and distinct theology."Just as the lights of lamps—to use sensible and familiar examples—when they are in one house, are all in each other, and have an exact distinction existing individually from one another, joined by distinction, and distinct by union. D And so we see in a house where there are many lamps, all the lights coalescing into one light, and emitting one undifferentiated radiance; and no one, as I think, would be able to distinguish the light of this lamp from the others in the air that contains all the lights, and to see one without the other, since they are mixed together with the whole in the whole without intermingling." These are the words of Dionysius.
A
Scholium. He calls the Holy Trinity both united and distinct, because of the common nature and the distinction of the hypostases.
Now let us proceed to the solution of what has been said. The meaning of the Father is of this kind. In explaining the mystery of the Trinity, he used the example of three candles or lamps lit in some temple or house, which indeed are distinguished and separated from one another by their hypostases. For each lamp is one and another individually, yet in light they have a united and inseparable communion of nature and operation; and no one can distinguish in the surrounding air of the house and say: "Which light belongs to this lamp, and which to that." This is what the teacher said.
Afterwards, he passes from the discourse concerning the mystery of the Trinity to the reason for the incarnation; and to the procession in God (but when you hear of procession, do not think it local, but that of which Christ himself speaks: "I went forth from the Father, and I go to the Father" [John 16:28]). B Dionysius says: "But if one were to take one of the torches out of the room, the whole light that emanates from it will go out with it, carrying away nothing of the other lights with itself, nor leaving anything of its own to the others."
The Son, he says, having gone forth from the Father and having dwelt in the world, neither drew the Father and the Spirit with him, nor indeed did the one who went forth leave anything of his own to them; but he made his departure according to his own hypostasis alone. Then, explaining what he had said, he writes thus: "But that which is according to us and from us, by which the supersubstantial Word took on substance fully and truly, is distinguished from the divine operations that kindly flow toward us." C
Explanation. "Distinguished," that is, separated from the theological mystery of the Trinity, through the fact that he took up our whole nature through the incarnation (for this is the reason for the incarnation and the assumption of human nature): and that he does and suffers whatever things are consistent and harmonious with human nature when joined with the divine. Consistent, I say, and harmonious; that is, pure or clean, and not worthy to be rejected by human nature: such as birth, infancy, growth, hunger, thirst, labor, sadness, tears, spittle, sweats, blood, transition, corruption, dissolution, loss of life, inability to speak and move. To these Dionysius adds: "For in no way did the Father and the Spirit become participants in these." D
Let Severus be ashamed. Let Dioscorus, Timothy, and Eutyches be ashamed. Let Theodosius and Jacob be ashamed. Let that ten-horned band of the Antichrist be ashamed, which says that all things that are said concerning Christ apply to the whole Trinity. Behold, for the apostolic light of the world, Dionysius, clearly confesses that God the Father and the Holy Spirit have in no way become participants in those things which Christ did or assumed in the flesh and through the flesh: "Unless perhaps someone should assert," he says, "by kindness, mercy, and communion of will."
A With the counsel, good pleasure, and approval, the Father and the Holy Spirit participated in the reason and mode of the incarnation of Christ. According to their own hypostases, however, they participated in no way in those things which the incarnate Word assumed from the Virgin. To Him be glory unto the ages of ages. Amen.
I ask for indulgence from the studious; for "we know in part," as Paul cries out, "and we understand in part, and we grasp the matter in part, and we formulate doctrine in part." For the more the Divine is researched, the more it is ignored; for not even the holy angels themselves understand divine things perfectly.
I shall add to this book, as if a bridal, triumphal, and victorious crown, the following: The divine law, both old and new, commands that "every word shall be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses." B In the holy synod of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers at Nicaea, therefore, it was declared that nature and hypostasis are not one and the same, as we demonstrated previously. Similarly, the holy synod at Ephesus, the first one, consisting of two hundred holy Fathers, through the all-wise Cyril, publicly decreed that nature is one thing, and hypostasis—that is, person—is another. The five hundred and eighteen Fathers are therefore sufficient for our holy, catholic, and apostolic Church for the defense and support against the Acephali; for neither any man, nor all the powers of the heavens, can ever at any time dissolve or overturn those things which such and so great Fathers have decreed. C Furthermore, when the Acephali often object to us one or another saying which calls nature a person, let us set against them the choir of the five hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. For the vote of the majority prevails in every matter, just as the canons of the holy apostles of Christ decreed; to Him be glory and power unto the ages of ages. Amen.
THE END.
Laus Deo Virginique Matri.