On the Composite Nature against the Acephali

FRAGMENTS

In the manuscript of Saint Hilary, at the end of the dissertation of our John of Damascus concerning the two wills, which is the last of the works of this holy Doctor contained therein, there is an excerpt which follows here, and which like the rest is attributed to the same author. However, there appears to be some transposition in the title due to an error on the part of the scribes, and I think it should be read in this way: "If man is [composed of] two natures, it is necessary that in Christ, who is at once God and man, we say there are three natures and three operations, as Severus argued." Indeed, in book III of *De fide orthodoxa*, ch. 16, a similar title is read: "Against those who say: If man consists of two natures and operations, it is necessary that we speak of three natures and three operations in Christ." For when the Fathers of the Church, in explaining the faith regarding the union of a twofold nature in Christ, used the example of man, who is composed of body and soul, as if of two natures, Severus and his Monophysites took this as an occasion to raise an objection, [arguing] that it follows from this doctrine that three natures must be declared in Christ, namely body, soul, and deity. The author refutes this in that fragment, which was previously published by Combefis in volume II of the *Auctarium Bibliothecae Patrum Graecorum* after the dissertation *De duabus voluntatibus*.

ANSWER

For that miserable Severus, when he had invaded the See of Antioch, strove to avenge the heresy of Manes, Apollinaris, and Eutyches, disturbing the peace of the Churches as much as he could. Being driven from Antioch as guilty of sedition, he fell upon Alexandria like a storm. Where, as another tempest was rising against the people, a certain man named Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus in Asia, a most bitter defender of the Eutychian heresy, threw everything into confusion and turmoil. For while Severus professed one nature, he nevertheless admitted a difference in Christ, but Julian, while also saying there was one nature as Severus did, wished to have all difference removed; both of those impious men became the authors of every disturbance and tempest, "not understanding," as the Scripture says, "either what they say, or concerning what they affirm,"^B taking as an example of the divine union man, who consists of soul and body, and saying: "Therefore you admit three natures." But let those unlearned and ignorant men know that we speak of two natures, not of God and flesh, nor of God and soul, but of God and man. For the nature of a part is not strictly the nature of man. For the parts of man are indeed soul and body: but the parts of the parts are the divisions and subdivisions which exist in them. And the parts of Christ remain unconfused, namely Deity and humanity. But soul and body are not parts of Christ, but parts of a part. For the parts of the parts are [those] of man; in the soul, for instance, which is a rational substance and an incorporeal quality, endowed in itself with mind, and sense, and reason. From which other things of reason ^C

^A have dominion, one being irascible, and another concupiscible. And of these, one is the faculty of conceiving and thinking, another the power of memory and counsel, another of appetite and attraction, and yet another of necessary defense. Most others, in turn, are divided from these. But let us not inquire here whether these exist in the soul as parts or as powers. Furthermore, in the body, there is a division into similar and dissimilar parts; and of these, again, into head, hands, and feet; and these themselves are divided into bones, flesh, and sinews; ^B and these into the four elements; and these, finally, into matter and form. Moreover, physicians discourse on many other things regarding the natural faculties, of which they name one the power of attracting, another of retaining, another of altering, and another of excreting. There is also much on sense and imagination, and on the vital and organic spirit by which the body is preserved and held together, which is said to be something entirely different from that which is rational. As, therefore, it is sufficient, in order to set forth all these things, to speak of the flesh and body of man, so it should suffice to speak of man and the nature of man, so that we may signify and set forth all [the elements] of which he consists ^C and in which he is recognized. But those [heretics] do not bring these things forward to show man to be perfect, but to calumniate the Lord and to make Him alien to human nature, so that either He did not take up from the beginning that which was ours, or He did not keep intact that which He had from us. The book of the holy and blessed John Mansur of Damascus, which is called the *Pandects*, is brought to an end.

Of John, monk and presbyter of Damascus, surnamed Mansur, on Theology: By what reason man bears the image of God.

That man is the image and likeness of God is manifest from the fact that there are three properties of his soul, which is endowed with intellect and reason: namely, mind, word (or reason), and spirit; ^D just as in the divine nature there are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For just as the Father is Father and not Son; and the Son is Son and not Father; and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit and not the Son or the Father; in the same way, the mind is mind and not the word; the word is word and not the spirit; and the spirit is spirit and not the word or the mind. Therefore, they are neither confounded by unity nor divided by number. For the three are one, and the one is distinguished into three, which are of the same nature and substance, and exist together always.

The Same. We are taught the doctrine of the Trinity not so much from divine Scripture as from the order and series of nature.

The Same, on theology. When there is speech about God, one God is celebrated and worshipped in three hypostases; and there is one Deity, one nature, one power and potency, one will; and three persons, and three hypostases, each

with its own property. For the property of the Father is unbegottenness; the property of the Son is generation; and the property of the Spirit is procession. God ^A the Father is without beginning; God the Son is co-without-beginning, even if he is from the Father; God the Holy Spirit is co-eternal and co-without-beginning, proceeding from the Father, not generated filially as a Son, but by way of procession. The three are one in Godhead, although in three hypostases.

In the dispensation of God and the Word of God, which by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit became flesh, we confess two natures and one hypostasis; one, I say, the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, God at once and man, and one person; but two wills and two operations, ^B each nature with its own property, without division and without confusion. For it is the property of the Godhead to raise the dead and to perform divine miracles; but it is the property of the humanity to be hungry and thirsty and weary, and to endure sufferings. For he was united to the flesh without confusion and without division, with which flesh he was taken up, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and shall come with glory at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead, God incarnate.

Concerning the Animate.

Animate is called that which is nourished, and grows, and generates what is like itself. This is divided into three: into animal; but the animal does not have only these three natural motions, but also that of moving from place to place; into plant; this has only those three; into zoophyte; the zoophyte is the mean ^C between the animal and the plant. For as it has the three of the plant, and in addition to the three, the motion from place to place of the animal, it exists as the mean. For it also has motion, but not from place to place, but by contraction, if anyone touches it.

The body is divided into animate and inanimate; the animate into sensitive animal and insensitive; the animate into zoophyte and plant; the zoophyte into fig-tree; the plant into herb, shrub, tree; the animal into rational and irrational; the rational into mortal and immortal; the immortal into angel, demon; ^D the mortal into man, ox, dog, and the like.

Innovation is a thing differing from the limits and laws of nature. Dispensation is a thing which ought not to happen; but it happens by condescension and for the benefit of some. Of existing things, some are essence, some are aptitude, and some are act.

*Post Dialecticam nostri auctoris isthæc etiam alia subjiciuntur in eodem codice Sancti-Hilarii.*

The parts of the soul are three.

^A The Law is threefold: natural, written, and the spiritual law of grace. The body, like another world, consists of four parts, but the soul within it is tripartite, prefiguring the holy Trinity and animating this body by its operations. We call the soul tripartite, for it is endowed with rational, irascible, and concupiscible faculties. By the rational, it reasons and understands; by the irascible, it uses strength against the demons, struggling against them manfully; by the concupiscible, it loves God. This concupiscible part is further divided into three: the divine, the natural, and the middle one, which is carnal and may be called diabolical. The divine is that which loves God; the natural is that which loves things consistent with nature; the carnal is that which loves things contrary to nature, such as—by nature, marriage; contrary to nature, fornication and the like.

In another work I found: The soul has five powers—mind, thought, judgment or opinion, imagination, and sense. The mind is the intellectual sense of the soul, by which it can behold things directly and without search. Thought is the power of the soul by which it can know things through reasoning; it is called *dianoia* because it opens a certain way. Opinion is a faculty of the soul that is not strictly rational, by which it knows things without their causes. Imagination is a power of the irrational part of the soul. Sense is the power of the soul that perceives things immersed in matter. ^B

Concerning union, by the Damascene

And it is by tempering, as in fluids, for example, wine and water. By heaping, as in dry things, wheat and barley. ^C By commingling, as between wet and dry, earth and water. By mixing, as in various flours. By fusion, as in things that melt, gold and silver, wax and pitch. By harmony, as in stones. By juxtaposition, as in planks. By coalescing, as with a lamp, when light comes from fire and is again united with the fire. By essence, as in individuals, Peter and Paul, or these or those horses, or oxen, or other animals. ^D

^A By relation, as in the case of friends and wills consenting to will one and the same thing. By composition, as in the case of soul and body. But "by hypostasis" is said only of the union of divinity and humanity in Christ. For the two natures have one person, and not two, as Nestorius raved. This union is also said to be substantial, and true, and not imaginary. Furthermore, in another way, union by hypostasis is the concurrence of things of diverse essence into one hypostasis, while each retains its natural property after the union.

576 Another fragment of Damascenus, which I found in the handwritten Thesaurus of Nicetas Choniates, of which the most illustrious and learned Mr. Baluze most kindly provided me with a copy, as he did of many other things: it is found in book XXIII, where there is a dispute against Soterichus Panteugenus, who said that the sacrifice is offered by the Son to the Father alone: whence Leo Allatius transcribed that along with other passages of the Fathers and published it in his *Vindiciae synodi Ephesinae*, p. 596.

Damascenus. ^B Does the God and Father of all act as God, or as Father? But if as Father, his will will be different from that which is the Son's; for the Father is not the Son. But if as God, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God, then the will is of the nature, or natural. Do you, therefore, forming an argument in this same way, ask: "Did the God and Father of all receive the blood of the Only-begotten as Father, or as God?" But if as Father, his capacity and operation will be different from that which is the Son's; for the Son is not the Father. But if as God, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are also God, then the Holy Trinity itself, as God, received the blood of the Only-begotten, who is one of the holy Trinity.

The following I found in the *Catena Regia* on Luke, cod. 2440, in chap. III, v. 13.

Damascenus. ^C And the Spirit descends upon the apostles. For He is God, and God is a consuming fire. For this reason Christ is said to baptize with fire, because He poured out the grace of Christ upon His holy disciples in the form of fiery tongues, or also because of the punishing power of the future fire; for that last is also a baptism, not saving, but one by which wickedness is abolished (for then nequity and sin no longer have a place), but it punishes without end.

Damascenus. Since the word "spirit" is understood in many ways, its meanings must be set forth. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is called Spirit. The powers of the Holy Spirit are also called spirits, as in that passage: "Seven spirits shall rest upon Him." For I believe the operations of the Spirit are called spirits by Isaiah. The good angel is also a spirit, according to that: "Who makes His angels spirits." The demon is also a spirit, as that which says: "The mute and deaf spirit." The soul is also a spirit, as when it is said: "Into Your hands I will commend my spirit." And there are times when the mind is also called spirit.

The spirit is also the wind, as the text says: "The spirit blows where it wills." The spirit is also the air. ^B

OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS, ON THE MACEDONIAN MONTHS, FROM ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION.

The pagans say that there are twelve zodiacal signs composed of stars in the heavens, which possess a motion contrary to the sun, the moon, and the other five planets; and that the seven planets pass through these twelve signs. The names of the seven planets are these: Sun, Moon, Zeus, Hermes, Ares, Aphrodite, Kronos. They call them planets because they possess a motion that is contrary and opposite to the heavens. They say that in every sphere of the heavens there is one of the seven planets: in the first and highest, Kronos; in the second, Zeus; in the third, Ares; in the fourth, the Sun; in the fifth, Aphrodite; in the sixth, Hermes; in the seventh and lowest, the Moon. The Sun, therefore, produces one month for each zodiacal sign, and through the twelve months it traverses the twelve signs. These are the names of the twelve signs, and their corresponding months: 1. Aries, receives the sun on the twenty-first of the month of March; 2. Taurus, on the twenty-third of April; 3. Gemini, on the twenty-fourth of May; 4. Cancer, on the twenty-fourth of June; 5. Leo, on the twenty-fifth of July; 6. Virgo, on the twenty-fifth of August; 7. Libra, on the twenty-fifth of September; 8. Scorpio, on the twenty-fifth of October; 9. Sagittarius, on the twenty-fifth of November; 10. Capricorn, on the twenty-fifth of December; 11. Aquarius, on the twentieth of January; 12. Pisces, on the twentieth of February. The Moon, however, traverses the twelve signs in each month, and being lower, it travels through them more quickly; just as if you were to make one circle inside another circle, the inner circle will be found to be smaller. Thus, the path of the Moon, being lower, is shorter and is completed more swiftly. ^{C D}

CONCERNING VARIOUS MONTHS. MONTHS ACCORDING TO THE ROMANS.

1. March, 31 days: Eat sweet food, drink sweet drink. 2. April, 30 days: Do not eat radish. 3. May, 31 days: Do not eat the extremities (feet/head) of animals. 4. June, 30 days: Drink a little water. 5. July, 31 days: Abstain from sexual relations. 6. August, 31 days: Do not eat raw greens. 7. September, 30 days: Do not eat milk. 8. October, 31 days: Abstain from acidic food. 9. November, 30 days: Beware of bathing too often. 10. December, 31 days: Do not eat cabbage. 11. January, 31 days: At the twelfth hour, drink a little pure wine. 12. February, 28 days: Do not eat beet.

FRAGMENTS

Months according to the Jews. 1. Nisan. 2. Jar. 3. Sivan. 4. Thamuz. 5. Ab. 6. Elul. 7. Tisri. 8. Marchsouan. 9. Chasleu. 10. Tebeth. 11. Sabat. 12. Adar.

Months according to the Macedonians. ^A 1. Taurus. 2. Geminus. 3. Cancer. 4. Leo. 5. Virgo. 6. Libra. 7. Scorpius. 8. Sagittarius. 9. Capricornus. 10. Hydria. 11. Pisces. 12. Aries.

Months according to the Greeks. 1. Xanthicus. 2. Artemisius. 3. Dæsius. 4. Panemus. 5. Lous. 6. Gorpiæus. 7. Hyperberetæus. 8. Dius. 9. Appellæus. 10. Audinæus. 11. Peritius. 12. Dystrus.

Months according to the Egyptians. 1. Pharmuthi. 2. Pachon. 3. Pauni. 4. Epiphi. 5. Mesori. 6. Thoth. 7. Paophi. 8. Athyr. 9. Chœak. 10. Tybi. 11. Mechir. 12. Phanemoth. ^B

NOTES (1) According to the Macedonians: namely the Europeans, not the Asiatics. The Macedonians, who under Alexander the Great occupied Asia and Syria—concerning whose solar year Ussher wrote a dissertation, as did subsequently the most eminent Cardinal Noris. The Athenians called their months by other names.

ADMONITION ON THE PASCHAL CANON

The Paschal Canon, or table for finding the day of Easter, which I exhibit here, I have found in two Royal codices, as well as in chapter 10 of the Computus of Isaac Argyrus, which Petavius published in his *Uranologia*; others also have codices from various European libraries, and everywhere the name of Saint John of Damascus is prefixed to it. In the Royal [codex]: "This is the Paschal Canon of Saint John of Damascus." In another: "Paschal Canon, composed by the grace of God by our holy Father, the Damascene." Finally, in Argyrus, chapter 10: "Table of the venerable and great Easter, established by our holy and God-bearing Father John Damascene." That our John Damascene is its author, I could not prove better than by citing the judgment of the most learned Petavius, in which he notes the carelessness and lack of precision of Isaac Argyrus regarding this Canon, on page 320. "The Paschal Canon," he says, "which he proposed in chapter 10, and whose Paschal boundaries Nicephorus anticipated by two days, he suspects was composed 608 years before he set forth these things. Because he claims it is delayed by two days from the Jewish Passover; yet he asserts that those two days have not yet been fully completed: but that three hours remain of them, to exhaust which thirty-eight years are required. Since at the beginning of the cycle (this is the Dionysian year of Christ 1373) the Jewish full moon falls three hours evenly after the rising of the sun on the 8th day of April. It was the Constantinopolitan year 6881. Therefore after thirty-eight years, namely in the year 6919, which is 1411 Dionysian, a full *proleipsis* (anticipation) of two days will occur, he says." Such is Argyrus. And indeed, truly in that year which he mentions, 1373 of Christ, the Jewish full moon happened about three hours after sunrise. It was the Jewish year 5133, whose Tisri began on August 30, the second day of the week, in the year of Christ 1372, with the Roman solar cycle IX, letter D. C. For its character was 2, 3, 606. But the Nisan character was 5, 20, 757, day of the week on account of the shift; March 25, Roman solar cycle X, letter... in the year of Christ 1373. Therefore the full moon occurred on April 8, the 6th day of the week... after sunrise. For the Jewish calculation begins from sunset. But the man's amazing stupidity: who has not noticed that the Paschal boundaries which are described in this table, to which the Damascene is inscribed as author, are none other than the Nicene ones, which Theophilus, Cyril, and the Catholics subsequently used. But Isaac thinks that Canon was composed and the boundaries established around the year of Christ 765. For with 608 subtracted from 1373, there exists the year 765. Certainly John of Damascus lived in this century, who could have been the creator of this resourceful table: yet he did not institute the boundaries. But that which I warned of before deceived Argyrus. He thought that at the time when the Paschal boundaries were fixed, the full moon fell on them: which did indeed happen in the age of the holy Damascene; when long ago, in the Nicene century, the full moons occurred almost two days earlier. John of Jerusalem reports in his Life that the Damascene was very skilled in astronomy, and says this can be gathered from those few things which he wrote for the education of the less learned: among which, indeed, was this Paschal Canon. Moreover, the occasion for composing, or rather transcribing, this may perhaps have been given to our Damascene by the dissension of the heretics from the Catholics, which Theophanes reports to have happened in the year of Copronymus, that the Catholics celebrated Easter on the sixth day of April, the heretics on the 13th, which however the most learned Antonius Pagi observes should be rejected to the year of the same Copronymus and of Christ 759, and that our Gauls, according to the Victorian cycle, along with the Alexandrians, celebrated the festival of Easter just the same, and thus even with the Coptic Jacobites, whom the Syrians of the same sect imitated.

PASCHAL CANON OF ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS. THE CYCLES OF THE SUN.

239 ^A 580 PASCHAL CANON OF ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS. THE CYCLES OF THE SUN. ^B The Legal Passover. ^C The Foundations of the Moon.

[Table of Paschal dates follows, covering the 19-year cycles and solar years A through 18]

240 ^D (*) The first of these numbers denotes the first day of Apocreos [Meatfare]; the second, the Paschal [date]; the third, the number of days of the Apostles' fast; and so with the others.

581 PASCHAL CANON OF SAINT JOHN DAMASCENE

[index: entries preserved]

The sixth fragment which I append is an epistle, transcribed from the Baroccian codex no. 10, which they say was written 306 years ago; however, it labors under many errors, which can barely be rectified.

Epistle of the most blessed and most excellent philosopher, the lord John, presbyter of Damascus, sent to a certain person: What is man?

Man is a rational, mortal animal, capable of intellect and learning. It consists of four elements, that is, of blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. And the blood is in the heart, and the spirit is likewise in the heart. Yellow bile is in the liver and the stomach; black bile is in the spleen and the kidneys; finally, phlegm is in the brain and the lower part of the belly. And those who consist of pure blood are always of a cheerful and pleasant countenance, are inclined toward amusements and laughter, and blossom with a comely and radiant complexion. Those who are of yellow bile are sharp-tempered, rash, and bold, prone to anger, and bitter, constantly changing color. Those who are of black bile are sluggish, faint-hearted, of frail health, lazy, and timid. Those, finally, who are phlegmatic are sad, indeed even cold, forgetful and oblivious, given to sleep, and of a pale color. ^A Moreover, in childhood, blood abounds until the fourteenth year. In adolescents, yellow bile abounds until the twenty-eighth year; black bile is more abundant in the prime of life until the forty-second year. Finally, in the elderly, phlegm prevails until the eightieth year. Wherefore children, on account of their blood, are hot and moist; adolescents, because of yellow bile, are hot and dry; those of prime age, because of black bile, are cold and dry; and the elderly, on account of phlegm, are cold and moist.

The temple of the head is the ruler of the body; and insofar as the brain is well-disposed and healthy, all the members of the body enjoy peace. Furthermore, power and sagacity are sent from the liver to the brain, in which is the seat of the soul, and the deep reservoir and abyss of thoughts. The head has five sutures. Indeed, a head is also found which has only one suture, whence it happens that it obtains health and soundness in every part. But the brain has three meninges or membranes, of which the first is the succinctoria; the second presents the appearance of a fence; and the third... There are also three parts of the brain; of which the first is varicosa, the second..., and the third is capable of intelligence. ^C It is, moreover, hot by its own substance. The brain differs from the marrow, in that it is white and void of blood, whereas the marrow is squalid and bloody. The body of the man consists of four elements, since it has within itself blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Each one of these humors creates its own proper place. The blood holds the right part above the liver; yellow bile, the left part above the spleen; black bile, the loins above the kidneys; and phlegm,, the chest above the...

lung. And the blood is warm, moist, and sweet; yellow bile is warm... ^A

VARIOUS READINGS

583 ADMONITION TO THE ORATION ON THOSE WHO HAVE DIED IN FAITH

The most learned Leo Allatius, in his second dissertation *On the Ecclesiastical Books of the Greeks*, freely declared that the Oration *On those who have died in faith* is not by John of Damascus; he also confirmed the same in his diatribe *On John of Damascus and his Works*, primarily because of the dissonance of style and diction, and also because of the iambics that occur in it, which do not reflect the vein and genius of our author. He was supported in this by our own Combefis, in volume II of his *Auctarium Bibliothecae Patrum Graecorum*, in a final note on the historical oration *On the Restoration of Images*, where he mentions the fables of the salvation of Trajan and Falconilla from the underworld, which he says were a great shield for the Greeks, just as they feigned that Emperor Theophilus had been delivered. Although, he says, the Damascene is older, in whose name the Greek ecclesiastical books have inscribed that oration, the style, when compared to the other dogmatic or ^B *festal* works of the Damascene, would persuade one not lightly that it belongs to another. You may certainly see that it is rhythmic rather than oratorical, and otherwise than speaks the purity of that Chrysaor. But it is no surprise that the Greeks could be imposed upon in this way by the name of the Damascene, since we ourselves were imposed upon in the sermon on the Assumption of St. Mary in the name of Jerome, etc. Such, indeed, is the opinion of that learned man; who nonetheless changed his mind and words when, in the *Bibliotheca Concionatoria*, he published in Latin that oration of which we now speak. For in the Preface he declares that he does not find in it such great defects of diction as Allatius did. But, having diligently examined the matter and weighed the arguments on both sides, I confess that Leo’s opinion, which was Combefis’s first, pleases me more, an opinion which I also defend in a separate and more extended dissertation on the prayers offered for the dead according to the doctrine of the Eastern Church. Here I shall merely say that I recognize the speech of my Damascene nowhere in this sermon. Nor should the titles ^C of the compilation, which I found in the Basel edition and in two Colbert manuscripts, nos. 7 and 2443, create any illusion: the first of which is, *Of John, the humble monk and presbyter of Damascus, on those who [are] in faith*, etc.; the second, *Of John the monk and sinner of Damascus, on those who [are]*, etc. These were certainly familiar enough to our humble Damascene. For they could easily have been transcribed and borrowed by scribes from his other genuine works, to which he had prefixed similar inscriptions. This is proven by the discrepancy of both Colbert manuscripts in reporting that title. The Greeks recite this oration every year in their churches on the Saturday of the *Apokreo*, or Carnival, on which day they make a commemoration of all the faithful departed.

I have been unable to find anywhere the old Latin translation of this oration, which Saint Thomas had consulted. Johannes Oecolampadius prepared another, and dedicated it to Conrad Peutinger in the year 1520, at which time, our Gravius says, he was still campaigning in the camp of the Church and had not yet cast off the Brigittine cowl. Ludovicus Nogarola later composed another. The fourth is by Jacques Billius, which Combefis ^D deemed should be changed here and there, having corrected the Greek diction against several manuscript codices: to whose labor I have not hesitated to add my own hand once again, according to custom.