{"slug":"tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1","title":"Liber Adversus Origenem","title_source":"Liber Adversus Origenem","author":"Justinianus Imperator","genre":"treatise","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T21:03:04Z","cost_usd":0.010761},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1173/tmp1173/tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":122,"english_words":29424,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":119604,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":31,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp1173/tmp1173/tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp1173.tmp1173.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":122,"translated":122,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":29424,"source_letters":119062,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Latin; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 122 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"29 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"2 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:1; John 1:14."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Licence: Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":122},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"JUSTINIANI IMPERATORIS LIBER ADVERSUS ORIGENEM •\n\nTractatus piissimi imperatorisJustiniani,missus ad Mennam sanctissimum et beatissimumarchiepiscopum felicis urbis et patriarcham, adversus imvium Origenem et nefarias ejus sententias.\n\nNobis semper studio fuit, atque etiam nunc est, rectam et irreprehensibilem Christianorum fidem. statumque sanctissimæ Dei catholicæ et apostolicæ Ecclesiæ, perturbationumexpertem usquequaque custodiri. Hæc nobis prima et antiquissima cura est: per quam et nohis in præsentisæculo imperium a Deo traditum esse et conservari credidimus, et reipublicæ nostrae inimicos subdi, et sæculo futuro misericordiam in conspectu ejus bonitatia nos adeptoros speramus. Nam et si humani generis hostis varias occasiones comminiscitur, quibus hominum animas studet lædere: Dei tamen humanitas, illius improbitatem et malitiam frangens atque evacuans, adversariusque redarguens, gregem suum damnum accipere aut dissipari non permittit.","english":"THE BOOK OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST ORIGEN\n\nA treatise of the most pious emperor Justinian, sent to Menna, the most holy and most blessed archbishop of the fortunate city and patriarch, against the impious Origen and his abominable opinions.\n\nIt has always been our concern, and is so even now, that the right and blameless faith of the Christians, and the established condition of the most holy catholic and apostolic Church of God, be kept everywhere free from disturbances. This is our first and most ancient care: through which we believe that both the empire in the present world has been handed down to us by God and is preserved, and that the enemies of our commonwealth are subdued, and we hope that in the world to come we shall obtain mercy in the sight of his goodness. For even if the enemy of the human race devises various occasions by which he strives to harm the souls of men, nevertheless the loving-kindness of God, breaking and bringing to nothing his wickedness and malice, and refuting the adversary, does not permit his flock to suffer loss or be scattered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Hæc autem a nobis ideo dicta sunt, quod ad nos allatum est, nonnullos Dei timorem in animo non habentes, nec rectæ doctrinæ discrimen tenentes, quo salvatur quicunque veritatem cognoscit; relictis divinis Scripturis sanctisque Patribus quos catholica Dei Ecclesia doctores habet, per quos omnis ubique hxresis expulsa est, fides vero orthodoxa declarata; Origenem, ejusque dogmata, paganorum et Arianorum et Manichaeorum crroribus affinia asserere: per quæ ille in foveam incidit. Qui ejusmodi sunt, quomodo possunt in Cbristianis numerari, eum tuentes hominem, qui ea quæ pagani, Manichaei, Ariani, aliique hæretici sentiunt, tradere studuit? Qui ante omnia in ipsam sanctam et consubstantialem Trinitatem blasphemias ausus est dicere: Patrem majorem esse Filio, Filium sancto Spiritu, sanctum Spiritum aliis spiritibus. Porro hoc ad impietatem suam addidit, ut diceret, nec posse Filium Patrem videre, nec Spiritum sanctum Filium: ipsum Filium et Spiritum sanctum creaturas esse: quodque nos sumus ad Filium, Filium esse ad Patrem.","english":"These things have been said by us for this reason, that it has been reported to us that certain persons, having no fear of God in their soul and not holding the distinction of right doctrine by which whoever knows the truth is saved, having abandoned the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers whom the catholic Church of God has as teachers, through whom every heresy everywhere has been driven out and the orthodox faith declared, assert that Origen and his doctrines are akin to the errors of the pagans and Arians and Manichaeans, through which he fell into the pit. How can those who are of this sort be counted among Christians, defending a man who strove to hand down the things that the pagans, Manichaeans, Arians, and other heretics hold? He before all things dared to speak blasphemies against the holy and consubstantial Trinity itself: that the Father is greater than the Son, the Son than the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit than other spirits. Furthermore, he added this to his impiety, to say that neither can the Son see the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Son; that the Son himself and the Holy Spirit are creatures; and that what we are in relation to the Son, the Son is in relation to the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Ad suas autem blasphemias hoc quoque adjunxit in primo sermone Petri archon, his verbis, sic dicens: In illo, quod mente apprehenditur principio, tantum numerum voluntate sua intelligibilium substantiarum constituit Deus, quanto poterat sufficere; dicendum enim finitam esse Dei potentiam: nec, sub obtentu laudis ac bonorum verborum, tollenda ejus circumscriptio est; etenim si infinita sit divina potentia, necesse est eam ne seipsam quidem intelligere: natura enim infinitum comprehendi non potest. Tanta igitur fecit, quanta poterat apprehendere, et sub providentia sua continere; quemadmodum et tam tam materiam apparavit, quantam regere, distinguere, ac exornare poterat. An ullam majorem potuisset Origenes in Deum blasphemiam proferre? qui ct in sancta Trinitate gradus excogitans, inde vult multitudinem deorum inducere, ac ipsam Dei potentiam circumscriptam esse monstrose asserit. Hoc vero omni impietate plenum, ejus fabulositatis est dicere, omnia genera speciesque coaeternas esse Deo: quodque rationabilia quae peccarunt, ac propterea de statu suo exciderunt, pro suorum peccatorum proportione, supplicii causa in corpora injecta sunt, ac expurgata, rursum efferuntur in pristinum statum, omni deposita malitia et corporibus: iterumque ac tertium, et compluries diversis ad poenam injiciuntur corporibus.","english":"To his own blasphemies he also added this in the first discourse on Peter the archon, saying thus in these words: In that principle which is apprehended by the mind, God established by his will as great a number of intelligible substances as could suffice; for it must be said that God's power is finite, nor under the pretext of praise and fair words is his circumscription to be removed; for if the divine power is infinite, it is necessary that it not even understand itself: for by nature the infinite cannot be comprehended. He therefore made as many things as he could apprehend and contain under his providence; just as he also prepared as much matter as he could rule, distinguish, and adorn. Could Origen have uttered any greater blasphemy against God? For he, devising degrees even in the holy Trinity, wishes from this to introduce a multitude of gods, and monstrously asserts that God's very power is circumscribed. But this, full of all impiety, is part of his fable to say that all genera and species are coeternal with God; and that rational beings which sinned, and for that reason fell from their state, were, in proportion to their sins, cast into bodies as a punishment, and having been purified, are again brought forth into their former state, all wickedness and bodies having been laid aside; and again and a third time, and repeatedly, they are cast into different bodies for punishment.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Ponit porro diversos constitisse et constare mundos, tum præteritos, tum futuros. Ecquisnam adeo fatuus est, ut haec audiens animo non exhorrescat propter summam impietatem? Quis non exsecretur insanum Origenem, qui hujusmodi finxerit ac scriptis mandarit in Deum blasphemias? quas, ut omnibus Christianis interdictas, manifestaque habentes impietatis argumenta, supervacaneum duximus refutatione dignari. Quare si hæretici omnes, ob unius forsitan aut alterius dogmatis perversitatem, e sanctissima Ecclesia sunt ejecti, subditique anathemati cum suis dogmatibus: quis prorsus Christiano. rum sustinebit Origenem ejusque prava scripta tueri, qui tot blasphemias dixerit, omnibusque fere hæreticis tantam exitii ac blasphemiae materiam præbuerit, ac idcirco pridem a sanctis Patribus anathemati subjectus sit una cum sceleratis ejus dogmatibus? Nam quamvis concedat quis, Deo repugnantem Ori. genem e recta doctrina (quod et apud alios hæreticos invenitur) aliquid expressisse in improbis suis scriptis: ea ipsius propria non est, sed sanctae Dei Ecclesiae; atque hoc ipsum malitiose in simpliciorum fraudem molitus est.","english":"He further asserts that various worlds have existed and do exist, both past and future. Who is so foolish that, hearing these things, he does not recoil in his mind because of the extreme impiety? Who would not detest the mad Origen, who devised and committed to writing blasphemies of this kind against God? Since these are forbidden to all Christians and contain manifest proofs of impiety, we have deemed it superfluous to grant them a refutation. Therefore, if all heretics, on account of the perversity of perhaps one or another doctrine, have been cast out of the most holy Church and subjected to anathema together with their doctrines, who among Christians at all will endure that Origen and his depraved writings be defended—he who spoke so many blasphemies, who furnished to almost all heretics such great material for destruction and blasphemy, and who for this reason was long ago subjected by the holy Fathers to anathema together with his wicked doctrines? For even if someone grants that Origen, in opposition to God, expressed something from right doctrine (which is also found among other heretics) in his wicked writings, that is not his own but belongs to the holy Church of God; and this very thing he attempted maliciously for the deception of the simpler sort.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Nam in paganorum commentis enutritus, eaque propagare in animo habens, divinas se utique Scripturas interpretari simulavit: ut hoc modo nefariam doctrinam suam sacrarum litterarum monumentis maligne admiscens, paganicum et Manichæum errorem suum atque Arianam vesaniam iaduceret, eosque qui sacram Scripturam non accurate percepissent, inescare posset. Quid enim aliud exposuit Origenes, quam Platonis, qui paganorum insaniam dilatarat, doctrinam; aut a quo alio Arius mutuatus, propria venena concinnavit? qui in exitium animae suae in sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate gradus excogitavit. An hic a Manichaeo abest, qui animas hominum dicit propter peccata corporibus ad supplicium immitti? quique primum quidem mentes et sanctas virtutes fuisse asserat, deinde contemlationis divinæ satietatem cepisse, ac in deterius conversas, idcirco a Dei amore refrixisse, indeque Græco nomine appellatas,et supplicii causa corporibus esse inditas; quod vel solum ad perfeclam ejus damnationem satis erat, cum a paganorum ortum sit impietate. Cum enim dixerit Deus: Faciar mus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I): ex ejus vanis sermonibus invenitur, solum corpus absque anima ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factum esse, si omnino praeexistebat anima, et facto corpore, in id injecta est, aut in id, tanquam in vas immissa.","english":"For, having been raised on the fabrications of the pagans and intending to spread them abroad, he certainly pretended to interpret the divine Scriptures, so that in this way, wickedly mingling his nefarious doctrine with the records of the sacred writings, he might introduce his pagan and Manichaean error and Arian madness, and could ensnare those who had not accurately grasped the sacred Scripture. For what else did Origen set forth than the doctrine of Plato, who had spread abroad the madness of the pagans? Or from whom else did Arius borrow, when he concocted his own poisons? He who, to the destruction of his own soul, devised degrees within the holy and consubstantial Trinity. Is this man far from Manichaeus, who says that the souls of men are sent into bodies as a punishment because of sins? And who asserts that they were first indeed minds and holy powers, then took their fill of the contemplation of the divine, and having turned to the worse, therefore grew cold in the love of God, and thence were called by a Greek name, and were placed into bodies for the sake of punishment; which alone was enough for his perfect condemnation, since it has arisen from the impiety of the pagans. For when God said, Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1): from his empty words it is found that only the body, without the soul, was made in the image and likeness of God, if the soul altogether pre-existed, and when the body was made, was injected into it, or sent into it as into a vessel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Ac necesse erit omnino dicere, ipsum Deum opificem hominis, corpus esse, ut pote qui corpus ad imaginem et similitudinem suam fecerit. Quomodo autem corpus, imago incorporei esse possit? Quamobrem absit, ut his Christiani assentiantur. Si vero, juxta Origenis blasphemiam, animæ præexistebant, ac in poenam peccatorum suorum in corpora demissæ sunt, ut emendatæ resipiscerent, eas oportebat amplius non peccare. Nam si corpus datum est animæ in supplicium propter peccata, ut doloribus emendaretur ad honorificandum Deum, quomodo corpus cam adjuvat et corroborat ad peccandum, quod iis qui poena afficiuntur, non evenit? Vincula enim, carceres, compedes, ac, ut breviter dicam, omnia ejusmodi, iniquitates et peccata eorum cohibent, qui jam poenas luunt. Nec ut qui peccarit, amphus peccet, vincula ei adduntur quæ ad peccandum adjuvent; sed ut vinculorum cruciatu peccare desistat. Quare perspicuum est, non ad superiorum peccatorum castigationem, ut illi nugantur, corporibus immissas esse animas; sed simul Deum et corpus et animam, id est, perfeclum hominem, fabricatum esse. Itaque eorum quæ per corpus a nobis gesta sunt, sive bonorum, sive malorum, retributionem exspectamus; hoc enim nobis tradit et divinus apostolus Paulus dicens: Omnes enim nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque ea quæ per corpus prout gessit sive oonurn, sive malum (1 Cor. v).","english":"And it will be entirely necessary to say that God himself, the maker of man, is a body, inasmuch as he made the body after his own image and likeness. But how can a body be the image of an incorporeal being? Wherefore let it be far from Christians to assent to these things. But if, according to Origen's blasphemy, souls pre-existed and were sent down into bodies as a punishment for their sins, so that, corrected, they might repent, it was fitting that they sin no more. For if a body was given to the soul as a penalty on account of sins, so that by pains it might be corrected to honor God, how does the body help and strengthen it to sin, which does not happen to those who are being punished? For chains, prisons, fetters, and, to speak briefly, all things of this kind restrain the iniquities and sins of those who are already paying the penalties. Nor, so that one who has sinned may sin more, are bonds added to him that might help him to sin, but so that by the torment of bonds he may cease to sin. Wherefore it is clear that souls were not sent into bodies for the chastisement of former sins, as they trifle, but that God made both body and soul at once, that is, perfect man. And so we await the recompense of the things done by us through the body, whether good or evil; for this the divine apostle Paul also hands down to us, saying: For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil (1 Cor. 5).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Attendenda ergo sunt apostoli verba; nec enim dixit, oportere recipere eum qui judicatur, prout gessit ante corpus. Si vero ob ea sola quæ per corpus homo gessit, ab eo qui terram judicat, vel pocna allicitur, vel merito præmio; nullaque mentio fiat ante admissorum peccatorum: perspicuum est, animas ante corpora non esse. Si enim præexisterent, dixisset Apostolus, gesta tum per corpus, tum ante corpus. Animas vero hominum intelligentia et ratione uti, in confesso est; quod ne eos quidem negare putamus, qui tuentur Origenem. Dicant igitur qui cum Origene sentiunt: animæ ipsorum (siquidem,ut asseverant, ante corpora fuerunt) priusquamin ipsa ingrederentur, quo in ordine erant, aut quid agebant? Oportuit enim eas, si ante crant, scire, quo loco essent, aut qucmodo huc advenissent; sin hoc nulla ratione possunt dicere (namid verum non est) apertum est eos fabulas dicere. At fortasse dicant, animas postquam corpora ingressæ sunt, tum discernere posse et cognoscere quæ a se geruntur. Si hoc dicent, ex eorum inani disputatione efficictur, ut corpusplus pretii atque honoris quam anima habeat; quod ei in beneficii loco det intelligentiam et rationem; atqui hoc assererc, plenum dementiæest atque absurditatis. Cur vero si anima, ut aiunt, ante fuit quam corpus, disciplina indiget, postquam in corpus venit, paulatimque iustiluitur, et ad meliora perfectioraque progreditur?","english":"Therefore the words of the apostle must be attended to; for he did not say that the one who is judged must be received according to what he did before the body. But if it is for those things alone that a man did through the body that he is either enticed by punishment or rewarded with deserved recompense by him who judges the earth, and no mention is made of sins committed beforehand, it is clear that souls do not exist before bodies. For if they pre-existed, the Apostle would have said \"things done both through the body and before the body.\" But that the souls of men use understanding and reason is admitted; which we do not think even those who defend Origen would deny. Let those, then, who agree with Origen say: their souls (if indeed, as they assert, they existed before bodies) — before they entered into them, in what order were they, or what were they doing? For it was fitting that they, if they existed beforehand, should know in what place they were, or how they had come hither; but if they can say this by no reasoning (for it is not true), it is plain that they are speaking fables. But perhaps they may say that souls, after they have entered bodies, can then discern and know the things that are done by them. If they say this, it will be brought about by their empty disputation that the body has more worth and honor than the soul, since it grants it understanding and reason as a benefit; but to assert this is full of madness and absurdity. But why, if the soul, as they say, existed before the body, does it need instruction after it has come into the body, and is gradually justified, and advances to better and more perfect things?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"Nam si ante existeret, utilia utique cognosceret, nec ulla egeret doctrina, nec, ut pote in cognitione versans, cura et diligentia erudirelur; ac si, quid sit offendere, sciebat, non edoceretur quod antea scivisset: jam vero si docetur, ut in ignoratione versans, prius non scicbat; si non prius scivit, ante non fuit. At liquet eam antea non fuisse. Ortus enim nostri Dens solus in causa est; qui ut nos, cum non essemus, fccil: sic natos, gratia manuque propria tuctur ac salvat, si digni atque idonei perhibeamur. Nam Deus, qui dixit: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram et similitudinem (Gen. I), utraque simul fecit, id est, corpus plasmavit, et animam intelligentem et rationalem creavit. Simul enim et effinxit corpus, et animam condidit, perfectum hominem exhibens; neque enim homo corpus est sine anima, nec anima sine corpore. Si autem anima praeexistebat, ut delirat Origenes, cujus re1 gratia sanctissimus propheta Zacharias dixit: Fingens spiritum homini in eo (Zach. xn)? Si enim prius erat, magis dicere oportuit, Infundens tanquam in vas, vel demittens spiritum hominis in eo. Jam vero cum dicit propheta, fingens, ostendit, ut corpus, sic animam non præexistentia Deum propria virtute ac bonitate fecisse.","english":"For if it existed beforehand, it would surely have known what is useful, nor would it need any teaching, nor, as one versed in knowledge, would it be instructed by care and diligence; and if it knew what it is to offend, it would not be taught what it had already known. But in fact, if it is taught as one dwelling in ignorance, it did not know before; if it did not know before, it did not exist before. And it is clear that it did not exist before. For God alone is the cause of our origin; who, as He made us when we were not, so He guards and saves those born by grace and His own hand, if we are shown worthy and fit. For God, who said, \"Let us make man in our image and likeness\" (Gen. 1), made both at once, that is, He formed the body and created the intelligent and rational soul. For at once He both fashioned the body and established the soul, presenting a perfect man; for neither is man a body without a soul, nor a soul without a body. But if the soul pre-existed, as Origen raves, for whose sake did the most holy prophet Zacharias say: \"Forming the spirit of man within him\" (Zach. 12)? For if it existed first, it would have been more fitting to say, \"Pouring it in as into a vessel,\" or \"sending down the spirit of man into him.\" But in fact, when the prophet says \"forming,\" he shows that God made the soul, as also the body, not from pre-existing matter, by His own power and goodness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"Quod igitur homo, sicut dictum est, ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei sit factus, dignatusque inspiratione divina; inde perspicuum est, non solum intelligentem et rationalem animam, sed etiam immortalem esse creatam; ut omnibus iis quæ in terra facta sunt imperaret. Hoc est enim quod a Theologo Gregorio de anima dictum est, a Deo esse, et divinam, ac supernæ nobilitatis participem: non, ut nonnulli autumant ac dicunt, divinae substantiæ animam esse: sed ut inspiratione Dei factam, gratiamque nactam ab eo, ut intelligens esset, et rationalis, et immortalis, nec una cum corpore moreretur, sicut irrationabilia animalia, sed per gratiam particeps esset supernae nobilitatis, id est immortalitatis. His testimonium perhibet sanctus Joannes Constantinopolcos patriarcha in undecimo sermone in creationem; sic enim ait ( Homil. XIII in Gen. n): «Et insufflavit, inquit, in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ, et fuit homo in animam viventem. Hic nonnulli imperiti homines, propriis cogitationibus moti, ac nihil Deo decens in mente habentes, nec condescensionem verborum reputantes, dicere audent e Dei substantia esse animam. insaniam, o dementiam! » Atque hæc quidem Pater de argumento proposito.","english":"That man, therefore, as has been said, was made in the image and likeness of God and was deemed worthy of divine inspiration—from this it is clear that not only an intelligent and rational soul but also an immortal one was created, so that he might rule over all the things that were made on the earth. For this is what was said by Gregory the Theologian concerning the soul: that it is from God and is divine and a partaker of the nobility from above; not, as some suppose and say, that the soul is of the divine substance, but that it was made by the inspiration of God and obtained grace from him, so that it might be intelligent, rational, and immortal, and might not die together with the body, like irrational animals, but through grace might be a partaker of the nobility from above, that is, of immortality. Saint John, patriarch of Constantinople, bears witness to these things in the eleventh homily on the creation; for thus he says (Homily XIII on Genesis): \"And he breathed,\" he says, \"into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Here some ignorant men, moved by their own thoughts and having nothing in mind that is fitting for God, nor considering the condescension of the words, dare to say that the soul is of the substance of God. O madness, O folly!\" And these things indeed the Father said concerning the proposed subject.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"Considera autem de aliis omnibus in terra factis dixisse Dcum, fiat, et producat terra, et factum eat (Ibid.); de homine autem dicit: Faciamus hominem: nec solum, Faciamus, sed, ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram;et sumens pulverem de terra, propriis manibus hominem finxit, et insufflavit in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ,et factus est homo in animam viventem. Ex his igitur perspici potest, ut Deus hominem fecerit honorabiliorem ac pretiosiorem aliis omnibus quæ in terra sunt crcaturis; alia quidem omnia fccit verbo: dixit, et facta sunt; hominem vero, siculi dictum est, propriis ipse manibus juxta divinam Scripturam fecit: quæcunque autem ab eo in terra facta sunt, subdidit homini, qui sexto factus est die: ut omnibus terrenis creaturis jam faclis, ac ipsi præparatis, dominaretur, ipse plasmatoris sui obediens imperio. Hoc etnos docet sanctus Theologus Gregorius in oralionc in novam dominicam (Orat. 43); sic enim dicit: Ita aliquid primum in dicbus numeratur, et secunduli, et tertium, ac deinceps, usque ad septimum diem, quo requiesfuit ab oporibus: tur. Si vero, juxta Origenisblasphemiam, animae præexistebant, ac in poenam peccatorum suorum iii corpora demissæ sunt, ut emendatæ resipiscerent, eas oportebat amplius non peccare.","english":"Consider, moreover, that concerning all the other things made on the earth God said, \"Let it be,\" and \"Let the earth bring forth,\" and it was done; but concerning man he says: \"Let us make man\"; and not only \"Let us make,\" but \"after our image and likeness\"; and taking dust from the earth, he fashioned man with his own hands, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. From these things, therefore, it can be seen that God made man more honorable and more precious than all the other creatures that are on the earth. All other things indeed he made by a word: he spoke, and they were made; but man, as has been said, he himself made with his own hands, according to the divine Scripture. And whatever things were made by him on the earth, he subjected to man, who was made on the sixth day, so that, with all earthly creatures already made and prepared for him, he might have dominion over them, himself obedient to the command of his own Fashioner. This the holy Gregory the Theologian also teaches us in his oration on the new Lord's Day, for thus he says: Thus something is first numbered among the days, and second, and third, and so on, up to the seventh day, on which he rested from his works. But if, according to Origen's blasphemy, souls pre-existed and were sent down into bodies as a punishment for their sins, so that, corrected, they might repent, they ought not to have sinned any more.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Nam si corpus datum est animae in supplicium propter peccata, ut doloribus emendaretur ad honorificandum Deum, quomodo corpus eam adjuvat et corroborat ad peccandum, quod iis qui poena afficiuntur, non evenit? Vincula enim, carceres, compedes, ac, ut breviter dicam, omnia ejusmodi, iniquitates et peccata eorum cohibent, qui jam poenas luunt. Nec ut qui peccarit, amplius peccet, vincula ei adduntur quae ad peccandum adjuvent; sed ut vinculorum cruciatu peccare desistat. Quare perspicuum est, non ad superiorum peccatorum castigationem, ut illi nugantur, corporibus immissas esse animas; sed simul Deum et corpus et animam, id est, perfectum hominem, fabricatum esse. Itaque eorum quæ per corpus a nobis gesta sunt, sive bonorum, sive malorum, retributionem exspectamus; hoc enim nobis tradit et divinus apostolus Paulus dicens: Omnes enim nos manifestarioportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque ea quæ per corpus prout gessit sive oonum, sive malum (1 Cor. v). Attendenda ergo sunt apostoli verba; nec enim dixit, oportere recipere eum qui judicatur, prout gessit ante corpus. Si vero ob ca sola quæ per corpus homo gessit, ab eo qui terram judicat, vel pocna aflicitur, vel merito præmio; nullaque mentio fiat ante admissorum peccatorum: perspicuum est, animas ante corpora non esse. Si enim præexisterent, dixisset Apostoclus, gesta tum per corpus, tum ante corpus.","english":"For if the body was given to the soul as a punishment because of sins, so that by pains it might be corrected to honor God, how is it that the body helps and strengthens it to sin, which does not happen to those who are being punished? For chains, prisons, fetters, and, to put it briefly, all things of this kind restrain the iniquities and sins of those who are already paying the penalty. Nor are bonds added to one who has sinned so that he may sin more, as aids to sinning, but so that by the torment of bonds he may cease to sin. Therefore it is clear that souls were not sent into bodies for the chastisement of previous sins, as those triflers claim, but that God made both body and soul together, that is, the perfect man. And so we await the recompense for the things done by us through the body, whether good or evil; for this the divine apostle Paul also hands down to us, saying: For we must all be manifested before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil (1 Cor 5). The apostle's words must therefore be heeded; for he did not say that the one who is judged must receive according to what he did before the body. But if for those things alone which a man has done through the body he is either afflicted with punishment or rewarded with deserved recompense by the one who judges the earth, and no mention is made of sins committed beforehand, it is clear that souls do not exist before bodies. For if they pre-existed, the Apostle would have said \"the things done both through the body and before the body.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Animas vero hominum intelligentia et ratione uti, in confesso est; quod ne eos quidem negare putamus, qui tuentur Origenem. Dicant igitur qui cum Origene sentiunt: animae ipsorum (siquidem, ut asseverant, ante corpora fuerunt) priusquam in ipsa ingrederentur, quo in ordine erant, aut quid agebant? Oportuit enim eas, si ante crant, scire, quo loco essent, aut quemodo huc advenissent; sin hoc nulla ratione possunt dicere (nam id verum non cst) apertum est eos fabulas dicere. At fortasse dicant, animas postquam corpora ingressae sunt, tum discerqere posse et cognoscere quæ a se geruntur. Si hoc dicent, ex eorum inani disputatione efficitur, ut corpusplus pretii atque honoris quam anima habeat; quod ei in beneficii loco det intelligentiam et rationem; atqui hoc asserere, plenum dementiæ est atque absurditatis. Cur vero si anima, ut aiunt, ante fuit quam corpus, disciplina indiget, postquam in corpus venit, paulatimque instituitur, et ad meliora perfectioraque progreditur? Nam si ante existeret, utilia utique cognosceret, nec ulla egeret doctrina, nec, ut pole in cognilione versans, cura et diligentia erudirctur; ac si, quid sit offendere, sciebat, non edoceretur quod antea scivisset: jam vero si docetur, ut in ignoratione versans, prius non sciebat; si non prius scivit, ante non fuit. At liquet eam antca non fuisse.","english":"That the souls of men use intelligence and reason is a matter confessed, which we think not even those who defend Origen deny. Let those, therefore, who agree with Origen say: their souls (if indeed, as they assert, they existed before bodies) before they entered into the bodies themselves, in what order were they, or what were they doing? For it was fitting for them, if they existed beforehand, to know in what place they were, or how they had come hither; but if they can say this by no reasoning (for it is not true), it is clear that they speak fables. But perhaps they say that souls, after they have entered bodies, can then discern and know the things that are done by them. If they say this, it is brought about by their empty disputation that the body has more worth and honor than the soul, since it gives it understanding and reason in the place of a benefit; but to assert this is full of madness and absurdity. Why, moreover, if the soul, as they say, existed before the body, does it need instruction after it has come into the body, and is gradually trained and advances to better and more perfect things? For if it existed beforehand, it would surely know useful things, nor would it need any teaching, nor, as one versed in knowledge, would it be instructed by care and diligence; and if it knew what it is to offend, it would not be taught what it had known before; but in fact, if it is taught as one situated in ignorance, it did not know beforehand; if it did not know beforehand, it did not exist before. But it is clear that it did not exist before.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"Ortus cniin nostri Dens solus in causa est; qui ut nos, cum non essemus, fccil: Mic nalos, gratia manuque propria tuetur ac salvat, si digni atque idonei perhibeamur. Nam Deus, qui dixit: Faciamus liominem ad imaginem nostram et similitudinem (Gen. I), utraque simul fecit, id est, corpus plasmavit, et animam intelligentem et rationalem creavit. Simul enim et effinxit corpus, et animam condidit, perfectum hominem exhibens; neque enim homo corpus est sine anima, nec anima sine corpore. Si autem anima praeexistebat, ut delirat Origenes, cujus rei gratia sanctissimus propheta Zacharias dixit: Fingens spiritum hominis in eo (Zach. XII)? Si enim prius erat, magis dicere oportuit, Infundens tanquam in vas, vel demittens spiritum hominis in eo. Jam vero cum dicit propheta, fingens, ostendit, ut corpus, sic animam non præexistentia Deum propria virtute ac bonitate fecisse. Quod igitur homo, sicut dictum est, ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei sit factus, dignatusque inspiratione divina; inde perspicuum est, non solum intelligentem et rationalem animam, sed etiam ianmortalem esse creatam; ut omnibus iis quæ in terra facta sunt imperaret.","english":"For the origin of our [nature] has God alone as its cause, who made us when we were not; and he guards and saves us, once made, by his grace and his own hand, if we are shown worthy and fit. For God, who said, \"Let us make man in our image and likeness\" (Gen. 1), made both at once—that is, he formed the body and created the intelligent and rational soul. For at once he both fashioned the body and established the soul, presenting a perfect man; for man is not a body without a soul, nor a soul without a body. But if the soul pre-existed, as Origen raves, for what reason did the most holy prophet Zechariah say, \"Forming the spirit of man within him\" (Zech. 12)? For if it existed beforehand, it would have been more fitting to say, \"Pouring it in as into a vessel,\" or \"sending down the spirit of man into him.\" But as it is, when the prophet says \"forming,\" he shows that God made the soul, just as the body, not from pre-existing matter, by his own power and goodness. That man, therefore, as has been said, was made in the image and likeness of God, and was deemed worthy of divine inspiration—from this it is clear that not only an intelligent and rational soul, but also an immortal one, was created, so that it might have dominion over all things that were made on the earth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Hoc est enim quod a Tbeologo Gregorio de anima dictum est, a Deo esse, et divinam, ac supernæ nobilitatis participem: non, ut nonnulli autumant ac dicunt, divinae substantiæ animam esse: sed ut inspiratione Dei factam, gratiamque nactam ab eo, ut intelligens esset, et rationalis, et immortalis, nec una cum corpore moreretur, sicut irrationabilia animalia, sed per gratiam particeps esset supernae nobilitatis, id est immortalitatis. His testimonium perhibet sanctus Joannes Constantinopoleos patriarcha in undecimo sermone in creationem; sic enim ait ( Homil. XIII in Gen. II): « Ei insufflavit, inquit, in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ, et fuit homo in animam viventem. Hic nonnulli imperiti hoMines, propriis cogitationibus moti, ac nihil Deo decens in mente habentes, nec condescensionem verborum reputautes, dicere audent e Dei substantia esse animam. insaniam, o dementiam » Atque hæc quidem Pater de argumento proposito. Considera autem de aliis omnibus in terra factis dixissc Deum, fiat, et producat terra, et factum est (Ibid.); de homine autem dicit: Faciamus hominem: nec solum, FaciamuS, sed, ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram; et sumens pulverem de terra, propriis manibus hominem finxit, et insufflavit in faciem ejus spiritum vitæ, et factus est homo in animam viventem. Ex bis igitur perspici potest, ut Deus hominem fc-.","english":"For this is what was said about the soul by Gregory the Theologian: that it is from God, and is divine, and a partaker of supernal nobility; not, as some suppose and say, that the soul is of the divine substance, but that it was made by the inspiration of God and obtained grace from him, so that it should be intelligent and rational and immortal, and should not die together with the body like irrational animals, but through grace should be a partaker of supernal nobility, that is, of immortality. Saint John, patriarch of Constantinople, bears witness to this in the eleventh homily on the creation; for thus he says (Homily XIII on Genesis 2): \"He breathed into his face,\" he says, \"the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Here some ignorant men, moved by their own thoughts and having nothing worthy of God in mind, nor considering the condescension of the words, dare to say that the soul is of the substance of God. O madness, O folly!\" And these things indeed the Father [says] on the proposed subject. But consider that concerning all the other things made on the earth God said, \"Let it be made,\" and \"Let the earth bring forth,\" and it was done (ibid.); but concerning man he says: \"Let us make man\"; and not only \"Let us make,\" but \"after our image and likeness\"; and taking dust from the earth, he fashioned man with his own hands, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. From these things, therefore, it can be seen how God [made] man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"cerit honorabiliorem ac pretiosiorem aliis omnibus quæ in terra sunt creaturis; alia quidem omnia fecit verbo: dixit, et facta sunt; hominem vero, sicuti dictum est, propriis ipse manibus juxta divinam Scripturam fecit: quæcunque autem ab eo in terra facta sunt, subdidit homini, qui sexto factus est die: ut omnibus terrenis creaturis jam factis, ac ipsi præparatis, dominaretur, ipse plasmatoris sui obediens imperio. Hoc et nos docet sanctus Theologus Gregorius in oratione in novam dominicam (Urul. 43); sic enim dicit: Ita aliquid primum in diebus numeratur, et secundum, et tertium, ac deinceps, usque ad septimumdiem, quo rcquics fuit ab oporibus; quibus dispertiuntur ea quæ fiunt, ineffabili ratione disposita, nec confertim ediia a Ycrbo rerum omnium potente: cujus et cogitare, et dicere rem ipsam est praestare. Quod si postrernus homo designatus est, idque manu Dei, et imagine honoratus: nihil mirum; ei enim tanquam regi oportuit prius regiam aulam subsistere, ac deinde regem judici, omnium jam quasi satellitio stipatum acmunitum.","english":"certainly more honorable and more precious than all the other creatures that are on the earth; all other things indeed he made by a word: he spoke, and they were made; but man, as has been said, he himself made with his own hands according to the divine Scripture; and whatever things were made by him on the earth, he subjected to man, who was made on the sixth day: so that, when all earthly creatures had already been made and prepared for him, he might have dominion over them, himself obedient to the command of his own Maker. This also the holy Theologian Gregory teaches us in his oration on the new Sunday (Orat. 43); for he speaks thus: Thus something is numbered first in the days, and second, and third, and thereafter, up to the seventh day, on which there was rest from works; by which days the things that are made are distributed, disposed by an ineffable reason, nor were they brought forth all at once by the Word who is powerful over all things; whose both to think and to speak is to accomplish the thing itself. But if man was designated last, and honored by the hand of God and by the image, it is nothing wonderful; for it was fitting that for him, as for a king, the royal court should first exist, and then the king be brought in, already as it were surrounded and fortified by the retinue of all things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"» Quamobrem, si ex Gregorii Theologi doctrina, ultimus homo est designatus, idque Dei manu, et imagine honoratus, ac omnia a Deo illi præparata sunt, eique tanquam regi prius subsunt palatia, sicque a Deo introductus est, omniumjam stipatus obsequio: quomodo dicunt, qui juxta Origenem desipiunt, præexistentes animas, propter peccata in corpora demitti, prius commissa luituras? Contra enimsanctus Gregorius et postremum omnium hominem factum esse dicit, et a Deo honoratum, et iis omnibus quæ in lerra sunt dominari: quod sane pœnæ*non est, sed singularis Providentiae ac beneficiisignificatio. Theologo porro Gregorio consentit sancti Joannis Constantinopoleos patriarchæ doctrina in undecimo sermone de crea-, tione, sic enim dicit (Hom. in Genes.): At fortasse dicat aliquis: Cur, si anima pretiosior est corpore, quod inferius est prius fit, ac demum quod majus est ac nobilius? Annon vides, dilecte, in ipsa creatione idem hoc factum esse: quemadmodum enim coelum, et terra, et sol, et luna, caeteraque omnia fabricata sunt, ac postremum homo, cui eorum omnium imperium mandandum fuerat: sic in plasmalione hominis, priinum formatur corpus, tum anima, quæ honorabilior est.","english":"Wherefore, if from the doctrine of Gregory the Theologian the last man is designated, and that by the hand of God, and honored as an image, and all things have been prepared for him by God, and palaces are subject to him beforehand as to a king, and thus he has been introduced by God, now surrounded by the obedience of all: how do those who rave according to Origen say that pre-existent souls are cast down into bodies on account of sins, to atone for sins previously committed? For on the contrary, Saint Gregory says both that man was made last of all, and that he was honored by God, and that he rules over all those things that are on the earth: which surely is not a punishment, but a sign of singular Providence and beneficence. Furthermore, the doctrine of Saint John, patriarch of Constantinople, agrees with Gregory the Theologian in the eleventh homily on creation, for he speaks thus (Homily on Genesis): But perhaps someone may say: Why, if the soul is more precious than the body, is that which is lower made first, and then at last that which is greater and more noble? Do you not see, beloved, that this very thing was done in creation itself: for just as heaven, and earth, and sun, and moon, and all other things were fashioned, and last of all man, to whom the dominion over all of them was to be entrusted: so in the forming of man, the body is first formed, then the soul, which is more honorable.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Nam ut experlia rationis, qua ad utilitatem et obsequium parabantur, ante hominem exstitere, ut parata ministeria haberet, qui eorum commodis frui debebat: ita et corpus ante animam fabricatum est, ut cum juxta occultam Dei sapientiam anima induceretur, propria oflicia posset motu corporis exsequi. » Atque haec salis ad ostendendumaudientibus, nos ubique eadem sentire ac dicere quæ Patres, qui animarum præexistentiam tollunt. Præterea, cum sancta Scriptura de Adam atque Eva dicat: Benedixit eos Detis, et dixit: Crescite, et multiplicamini, el replete terram, et dominamini ei (Gen. 1): quomodo, si animæ antiquiores fuere corporibus, futurum fuit, ut secundum divinum imperium crescerent ac multiplicarentur, quæ ante, juxta eorum fabulas erant? ct quomodo habebat Deus benedicere animas jam in peccata lapsas, ad crescendum ei multiplicandum?Animai enim peccatis contaminatæ, maledictione potius quam benedictione dignae erant. At si animae præexistebant, et juxta Origenis fabulas, in alio erant ordine: quamobrem solum Adam plasmavit Deus? an vero Adam anima tumsola peccarat, ac propterea unum corpus a Deo fabricatum? Si enim antea aliae animæ fueruut, alia corpora simul fabricari oportuit, quæ susciperent animas. Et quomodo peccatrix, ut eorum est ratio, anima supplicii causa in corpus conjecta, in paradiao deliciarum a Deo posita est?","english":"For just as the things that were prepared for use and service existed before man, so that he who was to enjoy their benefits might have them ready as ministrations, so too the body was fashioned before the soul, so that when the soul was brought in according to the hidden wisdom of God, it might be able to carry out its own functions through the motion of the body. And these things suffice to show to the hearers that we everywhere think and say the same as the Fathers who abolish the pre-existence of souls. Moreover, since holy Scripture says of Adam and Eve: God blessed them, and said: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and have dominion over it (Gen. 1): how, if souls were older than bodies, was it going to be that they should grow and multiply according to the divine command—souls which, according to their fables, existed beforehand? And how was God to bless souls already fallen into sins, to grow and multiply? For souls contaminated by sins were worthy rather of a curse than of a blessing. But if souls pre-existed, and according to the fables of Origen were in another order, why did God form only Adam? Or had Adam's soul alone sinned, and for that reason was one body fashioned by God? For if other souls existed beforehand, other bodies ought to have been fashioned at the same time to receive the souls. And how is a sinful soul—according to their reasoning—cast into a body as a punishment, yet placed by God in the delights of paradise?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"Nam si ut poenas dependeret in corpus esset missa, nou iu illo paradiso sed in supplicii loco collocaretur. Tantopere vera dilexiL hominem Deus, quem post omnes creatures fabricaverat, ut cum ille transgressus esset datum sibi præceptum, ac idcirco e paradiso esset expulsus; crescente hominum genere, gliscente peccato, quod cogitatio hominis ad deleriora pravo studio incumberet, figmentum suum Deus, ut pote bonus, non neglexit, sed multis modis reprehendit ct castigavit, sicuti sancta Scriptura significat. Postquam vero ob graviores morbos majore medicina indiguimus; ipsum unigenitum Dci Verbum, unus, id est, una persoua, sanctæ Trinitatis, propter benignitatem suam homo fit, manens Deus, nec divina sua substantia in humanam conversa, nec humana in divinam mutata; unusque est ac idem in utraque natura, in iisque inconfuse atque indivise cognoscimur. Manens enim quod erat, factum est quod non erat: mortemque nobis debitam ex transgressionis damnatione, in propria carne suscipiens, aeterna nos morte liberavit, primitiæ dormientium factus, ac primogenitus resurgens ex mortuis, consuscitavit et consedere fecit in cælestibus (1 Cor. xv; Coloss. i; Ephes. II): quemadmodum nos docet traditio apostolica. Quamvis enim a principio humana natura propter inobedienliam privata paradiso est: tamen, ut est dictum, Unigenitus Dei Filius propter multam charitatem suam qua dilexit nos (Ephes.","english":"For if she had been sent into the body to pay penalties, she would have been placed not in that paradise but in a place of punishment. God so greatly loved man, whom he had fashioned after all created things, that when man had transgressed the commandment given to him and was for that reason expelled from paradise, as the human race grew and sin increased—because man's thought, by a depraved inclination, applied itself to baser things—God, being good, did not neglect his own handiwork, but reproved and chastised it in many ways, as Holy Scripture indicates. But after we stood in need of greater medicine because of more grievous diseases, the only-begotten Word of God himself, one, that is, one person of the Holy Trinity, on account of his kindness became man while remaining God, neither his divine substance being converted into the human, nor the human changed into the divine; and he is one and the same in both natures, and in them we recognize him as without confusion and without division. For remaining what he was, he became what he was not; and taking upon himself in his own flesh the death owed to us by the condemnation of transgression, he freed us from eternal death, becoming the firstfruits of those who sleep, and rising as the firstborn from the dead, he raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places (1 Cor. 15; Col. 1; Eph. 2), as the apostolic tradition teaches us. For although from the beginning human nature was deprived of paradise because of disobedience, nevertheless, as has been said, the only-begotten Son of God, on account of his great love with which he loved us (Eph.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"II), naturam nostram sibi uniens indivise secundum subsistentiam in utero sanctae gloriosæ Dei genitricis semper virginis Mariae, majori nos dignatus est gratia, donans nobis regnum coelorum. Atque his testimonium perhibet sanctus Joannes Constantinopoleos patriarcha in sermone de Ascensione (Torn. III oper. ejus), sic dicens: Qui terra indigni exstiteramus, hodie in cœlum elevati sumus: qui ne inferiore quidem imperio fueramus digni, ad regnum supernum conscendimus, supergressi coelos, regiuwque solium adepti. Natura, propter quam Cherubim paradisum custodiebant (Gen. III), ipsa supra Cherubim hodie sedet. Quamobrem demonstratum est animas, non, ut Origenes nugatur, in cælis prius Inisse, ac deinde in corpora missas, ut perpetratorum peccatorum poenas exsolverent; sed contra, in terra fabricatam universam naturam humanam, id est corpus atque animam, bonitate ac dignatione divina coelos adeptam esse: ut qui homines mandatum Dei custodirent ac implerent, angelorum in coelis conversatione digni haberentur, quos in terra imitari per confessionem in Deum jussi sumus. Nam cum vellet Deus propter inenarrabilem humanitatem suam, sicut in coelis a sanctis virtutibus glorificatur, ita et in terra glorificari ab hominibus, fabricatus est hominem, alterum angelum in terris: ut Dei gloria omnia complerentur.","english":"uniting our nature to himself inseparably according to subsistence in the womb of the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he deigned to grant us a greater grace, giving us the kingdom of heaven. And Saint John, patriarch of Constantinople, bears witness to these things in his sermon on the Ascension (vol. III of his works), saying thus: We who were unworthy of the earth, today have been raised up to heaven; we who were not worthy even of a lower dominion have ascended to the kingdom above, passing beyond the heavens and attaining the royal throne. The nature for which the Cherubim guarded paradise (Gen. 3), that very nature today sits above the Cherubim. Therefore it has been demonstrated that souls did not, as Origen babbles, first exist in the heavens and then be sent into bodies to pay the penalties of sins committed; but on the contrary, the whole human nature formed on earth, that is, body and soul, has attained the heavens by the goodness and condescension of God: so that those who kept and fulfilled God's commandment might be held worthy of the conversation of the angels in heaven, whom we on earth have been commanded to imitate through confession of God. For since God wished, because of his ineffable love for humanity, that just as he is glorified in the heavens by the holy powers, so also he be glorified on earth by men, he fashioned man as a second angel on earth: so that all things might be filled with the glory of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"Itaque Dominus tradens quomodo sit orandum, dicit: Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua sicut in cælo et in terra.\n\nCum his porro quæ a nobis dicta sunt, conveniunt quæ sanctus Theologus Gregorius docet in sermoni de sancto Paschatc (Orat. 42, quae eat de Paschate); sic enim dicit: « Cum hanc rem Verbum artifex demonstrare vellet, etiam aniinal unum ex utrisque, natura videlicet visibili atque invisibili, hominem fabricatur; sumptoque corpore e materia quæ ante subsistebat, ac a seipso vitam indens (quod utique animam intelligentem et imaginem Dei esse ratio novit), veluti quemdam alterum mundum, in parvo magnum constituit in terra, alium angelum, promiscuum adoratorem, contemplatorem visibilis naturæ, studiosumque ejus quæ sola mente comprehenditur: eorum quæ in terra sunt, imperatorem superno obtemperantem imperio. Quare attendendum est, Patrem hunc, cum diceret Deum ex utrisque fecisse hominem, addidisse e prius subsistente materia corpus sumptum: non dixisse vero prius exstitisse animam, nec ex ulla substantia natam quae ante existerent: sed Deum per seipsum vitam indidisse, quod animam esse intelligentem, et Dei imaginem, novit ratio. Quod autem dicit Pater, Deum fecisse hominem imperatorem in terra, superno obstrictum imperio, evertit eorum assertionem qui ad poenam animas immissas curo. ribos dicunt.","english":"Therefore the Lord, when handing down how one ought to pray, says: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.\n\nWith these things which we have said, moreover, agree the things which the holy Theologian Gregory teaches in his sermon on holy Pascha (Orat. 42, which is on the Pascha); for thus he says: «When the Word, the craftsman, wished to demonstrate this thing, he also fashions a single living being from both, namely from visible and invisible nature, man; and having taken a body from matter that previously subsisted, and having put life into it from himself (which reason knows to be an intelligent soul and the image of God), he established him as a kind of second world, a great one in a small one, on earth, another angel, a mixed worshipper, a contemplator of visible nature, and a zealous student of that which is comprehended by mind alone: an emperor of the things on earth, obedient to the heavenly command. Wherefore it must be noted that the Father, when he said that God made man from both, added that the body was taken from previously subsisting matter; but he did not say that the soul previously existed, nor was born from any substance of those things which existed before: but that God by himself put life into it, which reason knows to be an intelligent soul and the image of God. But what the Father says, that God made man an emperor on earth, bound to the heavenly command, overturns the assertion of those who say that souls are sent into bodies as a punishment.»","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"Nam in terra regnare, soliusque Dei teneri imperio, non in supplicii loco ducenduw est, sed in magno beneficio ac munere Dei.\n\nAd haec illud nobis necessario dicendum existicuamus in eos qui præexistentiam asserunt: Si veron esset, prius esse animas quam corpora, cognoscerent ac recordarentur quae ante gessissent quam in corpora venirent; quemadmodum post obitum sciunt ac norunt quae in corporibus egere. Demonstrabimus autem animam post discessum e vita cognoscere quæ gessit, ex ipsis Evangelii verbis; haec enim dicit Dominus noster et Salvator Christus in Evangelio secuudum Lucam in periocba Lazari et divitis (Luc. XIX): Homo quidam erat dives, et induebatur purpura et bysso, et epulabatur quotidie splendide. Et erat quidam mendicus nomine Lazarus, qui jacebat ad januam ejus, ulceribus plenus, cupiens satiari de micis qua cadebant de mensa divitis: sed et canes veniebant, et lingebant ulcera ejus. Factum est autem ut moreretur mendicus, et portaretur ab angelis in sinum Abrahæ. Mortuus est autem e: dives, et sepultus est. Et in inferno elevans oculos suos cum esset in tormentis, vidit Abraham a longe, et ipse Lazarum in sinu ejus: et ipse clamans dixit: Pater Abraham, miserere mei, et mitte Lazarum, ut intingat extremum digiti sui in aquam, et refrigeret linguam meum, quia crucior in hac flamma.","english":"For to reign on earth, and to be held under the power of God alone, ought not to be reckoned a place of punishment, but a great benefit and gift of God.\n\nIn addition to these things, we think it must necessarily be said by us against those who assert pre-existence: If it were true that souls existed before bodies, they would know and remember what they had done before they came into bodies, just as after death they know and are aware of what they did in bodies. But we will demonstrate that the soul, after its departure from life, knows what it did, from the very words of the Gospel; for our Lord and Savior Christ says these things in the Gospel according to Luke in the passage concerning Lazarus and the rich man (Luke XIX): There was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, desiring to be satisfied with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: but even the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell, lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: and he cried out, saying: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"Et dixit illi Abraham: Fili, recordare quia recepisti tu bona tua in vita tua, et Lazarus similiter mala; nunc autem hic consolatur, tu vero cruciaris. Et in his omnibus inter nos et vos magnum chaos firmatum est: ut hi qui velint transire ad vos, non possint, neque inde huc transmeare. Et ait: Rogo ergo te, pater, ut mittas eum in domum patris mei; habeo enim quinque fratres: ut testetur illis, ne et ipsi veniant in hunc locum tormentorum. Quamobrem pudeat eos qui tuentur Origenem vel ex sancti Evaugelii verbis. Si enim ante animæ quam corpora fuissent, cognoscerent ea quæ ante corpus fecissent, quemadmodum post migrationem e vita reminiscuntur ca quæ in corpore gesserunt; hoc enim e verbis sancti Evangelii didi I cimus. B\n\nQuod autem et sancti Patres, sequentes inspiratas divinitus Scripturas, talem doctrinam condemnarunt, una cum Origene, qui hæc commentus est, jam quidem ei iis quæ illi dixerunt, aperte ostendimus: nihilo tamen secius et ex insequentibus Patrum testimoniis sumus demonstraturi. Ac primum sanctum Petrum, qui episcopus Alexandriæ et martyr fuit, proponemus, testimonium nostris his sermonibus perhibentem.","english":"And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise evil things; but now he is comforted, and you are tormented. And in all these things a great gulf is fixed between us and you, so that those who wish to cross over to you cannot, nor can they cross from there to here. And he said: I ask you therefore, father, that you send him to my father's house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment. For which reason let those who defend Origen be ashamed, even from the words of the holy Gospel. For if souls knew, before they were bodies, the things they did before the body, how is it that after departure from life they remember the things they did in the body? For this we have learned from the words of the holy Gospel.\n\nBut that the holy Fathers also, following the Scriptures inspired by God, condemned such a doctrine together with Origen, who devised these things, we have indeed already shown clearly from the things they said; nevertheless we shall also demonstrate it from the testimonies of the Fathers that follow. And first we shall set forth Saint Peter, who was bishop of Alexandria and a martyr, giving testimony to these our words.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"S. Petri episcopi Alexandriæ et martyris, ex primo sermone, quod nec prxexstitit anima, nec, cum peccasset, propterea in corpus missa est: Duximus quædam de primo e terra terreno bomine proponenda, ut demonstretur unum et eumdem eodem in tempore esse factum: quamvis particulariter nonnunquam interior et exterior homo dicatur. Nam etsi, secundum salutarem sermonem, qui interiora fecit, exteriora quoque fecit: tamen semel et eodem tempore, id est eadem die, cum dixit Deus: Faciamus hominem ao imaginem et similitudinem nostram; ex quo perspicuum est, non ex congressu, quasi aliquid aliud antecesserit, et ex alio loco convenerit, factum esse. Nam si congressus fuit, quamobrem descriptum est quod jam factum fuerat? Et post alia: Itaque non recipitur, ante corpora in coelo peccare animas, quæ prorsua ne ante corpora quidem substiterunt; hæc enim doctrina a paganorum philosophia est, quae peregrina est, et ab iis aliena, qui pie in Christo volunt vivere.","english":"From the first sermon of Saint Peter, bishop of Alexandria and martyr, on the fact that the soul neither pre-existed nor, having sinned, was for that reason sent into the body: We have thought it necessary to set forth certain points from the first formation of man from the earth, from the ground, so that it may be demonstrated that one and the same man was made at one and the same time; although sometimes, in a particular sense, the inner and the outer man are spoken of. For even if, according to the saving word, he who made the inner things made the outer things also, yet it was once and at the same time, that is, on the same day, when God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness; from which it is clear that he was not made from intercourse, as though something else had come before and from another place had come together. For if there was intercourse, why was that which had already been made described? And after other things: Therefore it is not accepted that souls sinned in heaven before bodies, since they did not exist at all even before bodies; for this doctrine is from the philosophy of the pagans, which is foreign and alien to those who wish to live piously in Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"Ejusdem ex mystagogia quam fecit ad Ecclesiam, cum martyrii coronam suscepturus esset: Propterea obsecro, vigilate. Afflictionem enim rursum adituri estis. Scitis quod subierit pericula qui me enutrivit pater meus et episcopus Theonas, ab iis qui in idola insanirent: in cujus ego sedem successi, utinam etiam in mores! scitis ut magnus sc gesserit Dionysius, qui se e locis in loca abdebat, cum insuper Sabellius affligeret. Quid porro dicam Heraclam et Demetrium beatos episcopos? quales tentationes sustinuerunt ab insano Origenc, cum ipse dissidia in Ecclesia sereret, quæ ad hanc usque diem ei turbas excitant? » An igitur potest aliquis bene sentientium iis adversari, quæ in Origenem dicta sunt a sancto martyre et episcopo Alexandriæ Petro? qui egregium pro Christo certamen suscipiens, non solum Origenem, sceleratamque ejus doctrinam abdicavit, sed etiam testificatur sanctos qui ante ipsum fuerant Patres multas sustinuisse tentationes ab illius dementia.","english":"From the same man's mystagogical instruction which he delivered to the Church when he was about to receive the crown of martyrdom: Therefore I beseech you, be watchful. For you are about to enter into affliction again. You know what dangers my father and bishop Theonas, who raised me, underwent from those who raged after idols; whose seat I have succeeded—would that I might also succeed to his character! You know how the great Dionysius conducted himself, hiding himself from place to place, when Sabellius was moreover afflicting the Church. What further shall I say of the blessed bishops Heraclas and Demetrius? What temptations did they endure from the mad Origen, when he himself was sowing dissensions in the Church, which stir up troubles for him even to this day? Can anyone, then, of those who think rightly oppose what was said against Origen by the holy martyr and bishop of Alexandria, Peter? Who, undertaking a noble contest for Christ, not only renounced Origen and his wicked doctrine, but also testifies that the holy Fathers who were before him endured many temptations from his madness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Dixit quoque sanctus Athanasius, qui et ipse episcopus fuit Alexandriae, in sermone de beati Antonii vita: Quomodo nos irridere audctis, qui dicimus Christum hominem manifestatum esse? cum et vos demente animam esse definientes, eam errasse dicatis, ac de apside coeli in corpus cecidisse? Attendant qui audiunt, sanctum Athanasium iis aperte adversari qui mentem præexistere dicunt, et ex ea animam ortam, quæ peccato se contaminavit, acce coeli convexo in corpus decidisse.\n\nEjusdem S. Athanasii e sermone secundo contra Arianos: Omnis creatura aspectabilis in sex diebus facta est; ac prino quidem die lux, quam vocavit diem; secundo antem firmamentum; tertio, collectis aquis ostendit aridam, variosque in ea produxit fructus; quarto, fecit solem et lunam, omnemque stellarum chorum; quinto, maris natatilium, aerisque volatilium generationem condidit; sexto, fecit iri terra quadrupedcs, ac demum hominem, qui ex anima rationali est et corpore. Ac invisibilia ejus a creatura mundi, per ea quæ facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur (Rom. I); ct neque lux est ut nox, neque sol ut luna, nequc angeli sicut throni, neque hi ut potestates; scd creaturæ quidem omnes sunt, unumquodque autcm eorum quæ orta sunt, secundum genas in pro-. pria substantia, ut factum est, persistit ac manet.","english":"Saint Athanasius also, who was himself bishop of Alexandria, said in his discourse on the life of blessed Antony: How do you dare to mock us, who say that Christ was manifested as a man? When even you, defining the soul as mind in your folly, say that it erred and fell from the vault of heaven into a body? Let those who hear attend: Saint Athanasius openly opposes those who say that the mind pre-existed, and that the soul arose from it, which defiled itself by sin and fell from the vault of heaven into a body.\n\nFrom the second discourse of the same Saint Athanasius against the Arians: Every visible creature was made in six days; and first indeed on the first day the light, which he called day; but on the second the firmament; on the third, the waters being gathered, he showed the dry land, and produced various fruits in it; on the fourth, he made the sun and the moon, and the whole choir of stars; on the fifth, he established the generation of swimming creatures of the sea and flying creatures of the air; on the sixth, he made on the earth four-footed beasts, and finally man, who consists of a rational soul and a body. And his invisible things from the creation of the world, being understood through the things that are made, are clearly seen (Rom. 1); and neither is the light as the night, nor the sun as the moon, nor the angels as the thrones, nor these as the powers; but all are creatures, and each one of the things that have come into being persists and remains in its own substance according to its kind, as it was made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"a Eccc sanctus quoque Alhanasius tradit, post omnes creaturas Deum fecisse hominem ex corpore et anima intellegente ac rationali. Neque enim dixit, corpus post omnia factum esse, ut præexistens anima in id ingrederetur: sed dixit, post omnes creaturas hominem esse factum, qui ex anima rationali est et corpore: ostendens, utraque, id est corpus et animam Deum simul fabricatum esse.\n\nQuoniam autem Origenes ad coeteras blasphemias hoc adjunxit, Domini animam prius exstilisse, eique Deum Verbum esse unitum antequam e Virgine incarnaretur: hoc etiam deliramentum evertens ipse sanctus Athanasius in epistola ad Epictetum, sic dicit: Merito sese damnabunt omnes qui existimant ante Mariam esse carnem, quae ex ea est; ac ante eam habuisse animam humanam Deum Verbum, ac iu ea ante adventum semper fuisse. Quare si ex iis quæ a sancto Alhanasio dicta sunt, anima Domini nostri Jesu Chrisli, qui per omnia nobis similis factus est absque peccato, non fuit ante ejus in carne adventum: qualis insaniae est, dicere alias hominum animas ante corpora esse?","english":"Behold, Saint Athanasius also hands down that after all created things God made man from body and a soul that is intelligent and rational. For he did not say that the body was made after all things, so that a pre-existing soul might enter into it; but he said that after all created things man was made, who consists of a rational soul and a body: showing that both, that is, body and soul, were fashioned by God together.\n\nBut since Origen added to his other blasphemies this also, that the Lord's soul existed beforehand, and that God the Word was united to it before He was incarnate of the Virgin: overturning this delusion as well, the same Saint Athanasius says in his letter to Epictetus: Justly will all those condemn themselves who think that the flesh which is from Mary existed before Mary; and that God the Word had a human soul before her, and was always in it before His coming. Therefore, if from what has been said by Saint Athanasius the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made like us in all things without sin, did not exist before His coming in the flesh: what kind of madness is it to say that other men's souls exist before their bodies?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Audiamus præterea S. Basilium in sermone in iliad (Hom. XVI): In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, ita dicentem: Vide ne quando te vocis ambiguitas fallat; quomodo enim in principio erat humana ratio, cum homo postremo principium generationis acceperit? Ante hominem fuere bestiæ, ante hominem jumenta; reptilia, tum terrestria, tum aquatilia; volatilia coeli, stellae, sol, luna; herba, terra, mare, coelum. » Ecce Pater aperte nobis denuntiat, ne Origenis fabulis de animarum præexistentia inducamur. Docet enim nos, in principio fuisse humanam rationem, id est animam: sed aperte clamat, omnibus Dci creaturis ortum hominibus poste riorem esse. Si ergo creaturæ omnes ante hominem, quomodo prius animæ fuerunt? Pater enirn non ante corpus, sed ante hominem, qui est anima et corpus, dicit omnia fuisse; ex quo ostenditur, simul utrumque fabricatum esse.","english":"Let us also hear St. Basil in his homily on John (Hom. XVI), \"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,\" speaking thus: See that the ambiguity of the word never deceive you; for how was human reason in the beginning, when man received the beginning of his generation last? Before man there were beasts, before man there were cattle; reptiles, both terrestrial and aquatic; birds of the sky, stars, sun, moon; grass, earth, sea, heaven. Behold, the Father openly declares to us, lest we be led astray by Origen's fables concerning the pre-existence of souls. For he teaches us that human reason, that is, the soul, was in the beginning: but he openly proclaims that the origin of all God's creatures is later than men. If, therefore, all creatures were before man, how were souls prior? For the Father says that all things were, not before the body, but before man, who is soul and body; from which it is shown that both were fashioned at the same time.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:1","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “in the beginning was the word”, which matches John 1:1. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"Dicit etiam sanctus Gregorius episcopus Nyssae, in Disputalione de homine (Cap. 28): Ac fortasse alienum non est a disputationis nostræ proposito id expendere, quod in Ecclesiis de anima et corpore controversum est. Nonnullis enim qui ante nos fuerunt, qui tractatum de principiis edidere, placet animas veluti quemdam populum in propria urbe ante substitisse: atque ibi proposita esse exempla tum virtutis, tum malitiæ: eamque animam, quæ in virtute atque bonestate perinanserit, congressum et conflictationem corporis minime experiri: si vcro a boni parlicipatione defluxerit, hanc in vitam delabi, sicque esse in corpore. Alii attendentes ex Moyse condendi hominis ordinem, animam corpore posteriorem tempore esse dicunt: quandoquidem primum Deus limum e terra sumens, finxit hominem, ac eum deinde inspiratione animavit. Ac paulo post: Qui primam rationem tuentur, et animarum: quasi civitatem antiquiorem vita corporea asserunt, non mihi videntur carere paganorum fabulis, quae de animarum ex aliis in alia corpora migratione proditae sunt. Si qois enim subtiliter examinet, comperiet huc necessario rationem eorum devolvi. Aiunt, quemdam e sectae suæ sapientibus dixisse, et viruin fuisse se, et miliebre corpus induisse, et subvolasse cum avibus,et fuisse arbusculam, et aquatilem vitam sortitum. Non longe, meo quidem judicio, a vero discedit, qui hæc de se affirmat.","english":"Saint Gregory also, bishop of Nyssa, says in his Disputation on Man (Chapter 28): And perhaps it is not foreign to the purpose of our disputation to examine what is disputed in the Churches concerning the soul and the body. For it pleases certain of those who came before us, who published a treatise on principles, that souls existed beforehand, as it were a kind of people in their own city, and that there examples of both virtue and wickedness were set before them; and that the soul which has persevered in virtue and goodness does not at all experience the encounter and conflict with the body; but if it has fallen away from participation in the good, this soul descends into life, and thus is in the body. Others, attending to the order of man's creation according to Moses, say that the soul is later in time than the body: since God first, taking clay from the earth, formed man, and then animated him by inspiration. And a little later: Those who maintain the first account, and assert that souls are, as it were, a city older than bodily life, do not seem to me to be free of the fables of the pagans, which have been handed down concerning the migration of souls from other bodies into others. For if anyone examines the matter carefully, he will find that their reasoning necessarily comes down to this. They say that one of the wise men of their sect said that he had been both a man and had put on a woman's body, and had flown with birds, and had been a little tree, and had obtained an aquatic life. In my judgment, he who affirms these things about himself does not depart far from the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"Vere enim, vel ranarum aut graculorum garrulo strepitu, vel irrationabilitate piscium, vel arborum insensibilitate ejusmodi disciplina digna est, quæ tot res permeare unam animam dicat. Hariun autem ineptiarum haec causa est, qu6d praeexistere animas opinabantur. Consequenter enim talis doctrinæ principium ad affinia et adjuncta progrediens, hucusque commenta sua propagat. Nam si per vitia animus a siblimiori vita abstructus, homo fit, ac si in confesso est, vitam corpoream passionibus magis obnoxiam esse, quam aeternam atque incorpoream, necesse est animam in hac vita degentem, in qua plures facultates ad peccandum suppetunt, in pluribus versari vitiis, magisque passionibus affici. Animae autem humanae passio, similitudo est ad irrationabilia. Huic ergo vitae devincta anima, in bestiarum naturam delabetur, ac semel vitia ingressa, inque irrationabilitate versans, nullum flnem ad malitiam progrediendi faciet. Ubi enim malitia sistitur, succedit impetus ad virtutem; atqui virtus in irrationabilibus nulla est; in deterius ergo necessario mutabitur, assidue ad pejora turpioraque progrediens, ejusque naturæ, in qua est, deteriora quaeque semper comminiscens. Porro quemadmodum rationabili sensibile subjacet, sic et ab hoc ad insensibile fit prolapsio. Qnamobrem huc ratio eorum evadens, a veritate aberrat, et per quamdam consequentiam ex absurdis ad absurda sc confert.","english":"For truly, such a doctrine—which claims that one soul passes through so many things—is worthy of the garrulous croaking of frogs or jackdaws, or the irrationality of fish, or the insensibility of trees. Now the cause of these absurdities is that they thought souls pre-exist. For the principle of such a doctrine, advancing consistently to things akin and connected, propagates its fictions even to this point. For if the mind, cut off from the higher life by vices, becomes a man, and if it is admitted that the bodily life is more subject to passions than the eternal and incorporeal life, then the soul living in this life, in which more capacities for sinning are available, must necessarily be engaged in more vices and be more affected by passions. But the passion of the human soul is a likeness to irrational things. Therefore the soul, bound to this life, slips down into the nature of beasts, and once it has entered into vices and dwells in irrationality, it will make no end of advancing toward malice. For where malice is halted, an impulse toward virtue succeeds; but virtue is none in irrational things; therefore it will necessarily be changed for the worse, advancing constantly to worse and more shameful things, and ever devising for that nature in which it is whatever is worse. Furthermore, just as the sensible is subject to the rational, so also from this there is a fall to the insensible. Wherefore their reasoning, escaping to this point, wanders from the truth, and by a certain consequence carries itself from absurdities to absurdities.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Exinde eorum doctrina per ea quæ inter se non cohærent, fabulose procedit. Consequentia vero ipsa ostendit omnimodam aniMae corruptelam.Quæ enim semel a sublimi vita decidit, nullum modum statuit malitiæ suæ; sed propter passionum consuetudinem atque habitum a rationabili ad irrationabilc deveniet, indeque in stirpium insensibilitatem mutabitur; insensibili autem inanimum est consequens, inanimo id quod non subsistit. Itaque penitus ex hac consequentia, anima ipsis ad non ens tandem concedet. Sic nullam facultatem habitura est ad meliora redeundi. Verum enim vero ad hominem e frutice animam reducunt; igitur præstantiorem demonstrant esse vitam in frutice, quam incorpoream vitam. Jam enim ostensum est, progressum animæ in deteriora, atque idcirco in inferiora esse; subjacet autem insensibili naturæ inanimatum: quo per consequentiam principium eorum doctrinæ animam redigit. Sed quoniam hoc notum, aut insensibili animam concludunt, aut, si inde ad humanam vitam eam reducunt, eam vitam quae in stirpe ducatur, ut dictum est, ostendunt antecellere primo animarum statui: siquidem inde ad malitiam fuit prolapsio, hinc vero ad virtutem est reditus. Quamobrem illa ratio convincitur esse sine capite, et sine fine, quae vivere animas separatas ante corpoream vitam asseverat, ac propter flagitia corporibus esse devictas. Haec Nyssenus.","english":"From this point their doctrine proceeds in a fabled manner through things that do not cohere with one another. But the consequences themselves show the soul's corruption in every respect. For once a soul has fallen from the lofty life, it sets no limit to its wickedness; but because of the habit and custom of its passions it will pass from the rational to the irrational, and from there it will be changed into the insensibility of plants; and after the insensible, the inanimate follows; after the inanimate, that which does not subsist. And so, thoroughly by this consequence, the soul, according to them, will at last yield to non-being. Thus it will have no capacity for returning to better things. But in truth they bring the soul back from a plant to a man; therefore they show that the life in a plant is more excellent than the incorporeal life. For it has already been shown that the soul's progress is toward worse things, and for that reason toward lower things; but the inanimate is subject to the insensible nature: to which, by consequence, the principle of their doctrine reduces the soul. But since this is known, they either confine the soul to the insensible, or, if they bring it back from there to human life, they show that the life led in a plant, as has been said, surpasses the first state of souls: since from there was the fall into wickedness, but from here is the return to virtue. Wherefore that reasoning is convicted of being without a head and without an end, which asserts that souls live separate before the bodily life, and are overcome by their crimes and given over to bodies. Thus Gregory of Nyssa.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"Cum igitur aperta sit Patris hujus doctrina, damnetque eos qui dicant, animas ante corpora fuisse: audiamus et sanctum Theophilum episcopum Alexandriæ, e sermone ad quosdam monachos scripto, qui Origem assentirentur: sic enim dicit: Quare anathematizantes Origenem, caeterosque haereticos, exemplo nostro, et Anastasii sanctae Romanæ Ecclesiae episcopi, qui ex veteribus certaminibus clarus nobilissimi populi dux creatus est, quem et universa beatorum Occidentis episcoporum sequitur synodus, quæ accepit ac probavit Alexandrinorum Ecclesiae sententiam in impium latam.\n\nEjusdem de epistola ad sanctos qui in Sceti erant, propter cos qui incusarent damnationem Origenis doctrinae: «Dicere nonnulli ausi sunt, Origenem Ecclesiae esse doctorem. An hi, obsecro, ferendi sunt? Si Ecclesiæ doctor est Origenes, magnos sibi spiritus sumunt Ariani, et Eunomiani, et pagani: illi in Filium ac Spiritum blasphemantes; hi similiter, atque illi, impii, nec non resurrectionem morluorum deridentes. »Ex his perspicuum est, eum qui sanctos Patres sequitur, non dubitare quin ii qui cum Origene sentiunt, paganorum errorem Arianorumque insaniam sequantur.","english":"Since, therefore, the doctrine of this Father is plain, and he condemns those who say that souls existed before bodies, let us also hear Saint Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, from the discourse he wrote to certain monks who were agreeing with Origen; for he speaks thus: Therefore, anathematizing Origen and the other heretics, after our example and that of Anastasius, holy bishop of the Roman Church, who, renowned from the ancient conflicts, was made leader of a most noble people, and whom the whole synod of the blessed bishops of the West also follows, which received and approved the sentence passed against the impious man by the Church of the Alexandrians.\n\nFrom the same man's letter to the saints who were in Scetis, on account of those who were accusing the condemnation of Origen's doctrine: \"Some have dared to say that Origen is a teacher of the Church. Are these men, I ask, to be tolerated? If Origen is a teacher of the Church, the Arians, the Eunomians, and the pagans take great courage for themselves: the former blaspheming against the Son and the Spirit; the latter, impious just like them, and also mocking the resurrection of the dead.\" From these things it is clear that he who follows the holy Fathers does not doubt that those who agree with Origen follow the error of the pagans and the madness of the Arians.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"Haec quoque sanctus Cyrillus dicit Alexandriæ episcopus, in epistola ad monachos qui in Phua, in eos qui affirmant corporum resurrectionem non esse: «Aiunt igitur, esse apud vos qui negent humanorum corporum resurrectionem: quæ pars confessionis nostrae est, quam fecimus salutare adeuntes baplisma. Fidem enim profitentes, adjungimus credere nos et carnis resurrectionem. Si hoc tollimus, nec credimus Christum resurrexisse a mortuis, ut nos sibi conresuscilarct, claudicantem habuimus fidem, ac a via regia deflectentes, pravum iter sequimur. Hujusmodi autem improba opinio ab Origenis dementia est: quem et patres nostri, ut veri depravatorem, abdicaverunt et anathematizaverunt. Non enim sensit ut Cbristianus, sed paganorum secutus ineptias et nugas, in errorem incidit. Hinc autem ei contigit morbi principium. Asseverat animas ante corpora esse, et a sanctimonia abductas fuisse in cupiditates ac nequitiam, descivisseque a Deo, a quo hanc ob causam damnatae sunt, et corpori obstrictæ, suntque in carne tanquam in carcere.","english":"Saint Cyril also, bishop of Alexandria, says these things in his letter to the monks who are in Phua, against those who affirm that there is no resurrection of bodies: \"They say, then, that there are among you those who deny the resurrection of human bodies—a part of our confession which we made when we came to saving baptism. For when we profess the faith, we add that we believe also in the resurrection of the flesh. If we take this away, we do not believe that Christ rose from the dead, so as to raise us up together with himself; we have a lame faith, and turning aside from the royal road, we follow a crooked path. But this wicked opinion is from the madness of Origen, whom our fathers also, as a depraver of the truth, rejected and anathematized. For he did not think as a Christian, but following the follies and trifles of the pagans, he fell into error. From this, moreover, the beginning of his disease came upon him. He asserts that souls existed before bodies, and that, led away from holiness into desires and wickedness, they departed from God, by whom for this reason they were condemned and bound to a body, and are in the flesh as in a prison.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"Ejusdem ex epistola scripta ad eos qui in Phua erant, monachos: Ecclesia vero, Scripturis obsequens a Deo inspiratis, nec animam novit ante corpora fuisse, nec ante ea peccasse. Quomodo enim quae non subsistebat peccare potuit? At nos affirmamus, universitatis opificem corpus e terra finxisse idque animasse intelligente anima, et haec est hominis structura.» Et post alia: Animam hominis nec ob praeterita, ut aiunt, flagitia atque scelera esse damnatam, nec in hunc demissam mundum, sapientissimus Paulus fidem facit, ita scribens: Omnes enim nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut referat unusquisque ea quæ per corpus, prout gessit, sive bonum, sive maium (1 Cor. xv). Cur ergo propter sola propria corporis manifestari nos oportere ait, nec potius propter ea etiam quae ante corpus, si animam ante fuisse norat, et ante peccasse? Si vero ob ea sola quae in corpore gessimus, adducimur in judicium, non utique habemus antiquius corpore peccatum: nam omnino ante id non constitit hominis anima. Hoc porro planum facit et legalis litterae vis. Si enim, ut dicit errabundus Origenes, ob snperiora commissa in supplicii ac poenae loco anima corpus accepit, quamobrem flagitiosis ac sceleratis mortem comminata est?","english":"From the same letter written to the monks who were in Phua: But the Church, obedient to the God-inspired Scriptures, knows neither that the soul existed before the body nor that it sinned before it. For how could that which did not exist have sinned? But we affirm that the Maker of the universe formed the body from earth and animated it with an intelligent soul, and this is the structure of man. And after other things: The most wise Paul gives proof that the soul of man was neither condemned for former crimes and wickednesses, as they say, nor sent down into this world, writing thus: For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what he did through the body, according as he acted, whether good or evil (1 Cor. 15). Why, then, does he say that we must be made manifest for the sake of the body's own deeds alone, and not rather also for those things which were done before the body, if he knew that the soul existed before and sinned before? But if we are brought to judgment for those things alone which we did in the body, then certainly we do not have a sin older than the body; for the soul of man did not exist at all before it. The force of the legal text also makes this plain. For if, as the wandering Origen says, the soul received the body as a place of punishment and penalty for former transgressions, why did he threaten death to the shameful and wicked?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Magis enim oportuerat, bonos ac justos viros mortem oppetere, ut vinculis et supplicio liberarentur: vivere contra scelestos ac nefarios, ut poena afficerentur, nec ulla vinculorum esset liberatio. »\n\nEx expositione synodicae epistolae episcoporum Ægypti atque Alexandriæ adversus Origenis doctrinam: «Hic ergo, de quo agitur, Origenes veluti abominationis desolatio in medio verae Ecclesiae exstitit; ac presbyter ordinatus a canonica, ab una, a vera manu, dignitatem presbyteri nudam ac solam habuit, quemadmodum et apostolatus habuit bonorem Cur ac proditor Judas. Is enim cum cœpisset blasphemas homilias habere, Heraclas abeatæ memoriæ tum episcopus, ut studiosus veritatis, arator ac vinitor ecclesiastici agri, eum e medio pulchræ ac lætæ segetis evulsit, quod revera e malo zizanio esset. Ac paulo post: Quare hic e coelo in terram decidens, tanquam fulgur, sicut et ejus pater diabolus, multae atrocisque iracundiae contra veritatem spirans, in Palaestinam regionem navigavit; moratusque in Cæsareensium metropoli, cum personam quam sibi induerat deposuisset, seque aperuisset, veluii piscis qui sepia apud quosdam appellatur, significans quod sibi voluptati erat, ac tenebricosum atque atrum vitæ venenum evomens, illic scriptis expressit, et siculi caupo Judaicus, boni specie ac simulatione, dulci amaruin miscuit. Quid enim iste prave moliens atque insaniens dicit?","english":"For it would have been better for good and just men to meet death, so that they might be freed from chains and punishment; but for the wicked and nefarious to live, so that they might be punished, and there would be no release from chains.\n\nFrom the exposition of the synodical letter of the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria against the doctrine of Origen: \"This man, then, Origen, of whom we speak, stood forth as an abomination of desolation in the midst of the true Church; and having been ordained presbyter by a canonical hand, by the one, the true hand, he had the dignity of presbyter bare and alone, just as Judas the traitor also had the honor of apostleship. For when he had begun to hold blasphemous homilies, Heraclas, of blessed memory, then bishop, as a lover of truth, a plowman and vinedresser of the ecclesiastical field, tore him out from the midst of the fair and joyful harvest, because in truth he was of the evil tares. And a little later: Therefore this man, falling from heaven to earth like lightning, as also his father the devil, breathing forth much fierce anger against the truth, sailed to the region of Palestine; and having tarried in the metropolis of Caesarea, when he had laid aside the person he had put on and had revealed himself, like the fish which some call the cuttlefish, signifying what was a pleasure to him, and spewing out the dark and black poison of his life, he expressed it there in writings, and like a Jewish tavern-keeper, under the appearance and pretense of good, he mixed bitter with sweet. For what does this man, devising and raving wickedly, say?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"Erat, inquit, anima ante corpus, et praeexistebat in coelis: eamque, cum ibi peccasset, in custodiam immersit Deus, id est in corpus demisit: ad purgationem, inquit, et castigationem admissorum in cœlis criminum. Hinc primum impiissimus protinus fabulatur, veritatemque oppugnare studet. Ac paulo post: I Si ante fuit anima in coelis, ibique prius deliquit, ut malesanus Origenes Deoque repugnans dixit, non oportuit dicere sanctissimum prophetam: Et fingens spiritum hominis in ipso (Zach. XII): sed potius, Demergens, quasi in utrem, spiritum hominis in ipso; vel fortasse, Demittens. Jam vero cum hoc non dicat, sed Fingetis in ipso, ostendit hunc lupum gravissimum esse, indutum extrinsecus ovis pelle ad deceptionem perditionis. Quasi enim de coelo veniens, ibique coustituta aperte sciens, non solum vecors præexstitisse, sed prius etiam peccasse animam dicit. Quare demonstratum est tum e divina Scriptura, tum e sanctis Patribus, nec veræ Christianorum fidei, nec rectae rationi convenire haereticorum de animarum praeexistentia imaginationes.","english":"He said, \"The soul existed before the body, and pre-existed in the heavens; and when it had sinned there, God plunged it into custody, that is, sent it down into the body—for purification, he says, and chastisement of the crimes committed in the heavens.\" From this the most impious man at once fabricates his first fable, and strives to assail the truth. And a little later: \"If the soul was formerly in the heavens, and there sinned beforehand, as the mad-minded Origenes, fighting against God, said, then the most holy prophet ought not to have said: 'And forming the spirit of man in him' (Zechariah 12); but rather, 'Plunging, as into a wineskin, the spirit of man in him'; or perhaps, 'Sending down.' But in fact, since he does not say this, but 'Forming in him,' he shows that this wolf is most grievous, clothed outwardly in sheep's skin for the deception of perdition. For as though coming from heaven, and knowing clearly what was established there, he says not only that the soul pre-existed, but that it even sinned beforehand—foolish as he is. Wherefore it has been demonstrated both from the divine Scripture and from the holy Fathers that the heretics' imaginations concerning the pre-existence of souls accord neither with the true faith of Christians nor with right reason.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Præterea hoc quoque Origenis demonstrat amentiam, quod affirmat coelum, et solem, et lunam, et stellas, et aquas quæ super coelos sunt, animata esse, et quasdam esse virtutes ratione utentes. Hæc vero aperte refellit sanctus Basilius in tertio sennone commentariorum in Hexaemeron, sic contra Origenis doctrinam disputans (Prope finem): Nobis porro de separatis aquis dicendum est et ad eos qui ab Ecclesia exciderunt, qui sub obtentu sensus anagogici et sublimiorum videlicet sententiarum, ad allegoriam confugerunt, et asserunt virtutes quasdam spirituales et incorporeas tropice ab aquis.significari; ac sursum quidem in firmamento mansisse meliores, deorsum vero iu terrestribus silvestribusque locis deteriores perstitisse; ac idcirco aiunt, aquas quae supra coelos sunt, laudare Dominum, id est bonas virtutes, quae dignae sunt propter potioris partis puritatem, decentem laudem reddere Creatori; aquas vero, quæ subter coelos sunt, spiritualia esse nequitiae, quæ e naturali sublimitate in malitiæ profundum deciderunt; eaque ut turbulenta et seditiosa, passionumque tumultibus fluctuantia, maria appelłari, propter facilem mutationem atque instabilitatem voluntariorum motuum. At nos hujusmodi rationes, tanquam confusa somnia et aniles fabulas, repudiemus; aquam esse cogitemus *, separationemque a firmamento factam accipiamus secundum redditam rationem.","english":"Furthermore, he demonstrates this madness of Origen as well, in that he affirms that heaven, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the waters that are above the heavens, are animate, and that certain of them are rational powers. But Saint Basil openly refutes these things in the third homily of his commentaries on the Hexaemeron, disputing thus against Origen's doctrine (near the end): \"For our part, then, we must speak concerning the separated waters, and also against those who have fallen away from the Church, who under the pretext of an anagogical sense and, that is, of more sublime meanings, have fled to allegory, and assert that certain spiritual and incorporeal powers are signified tropologically by the waters; and that the better ones remained on high in the firmament, while the worse ones persisted below in earthly and wooded places; and that for this reason, they say, the waters that are above the heavens praise the Lord, that is, the good powers, which are worthy, on account of the purity of the better part, to render fitting praise to the Creator; but the waters that are beneath the heavens are spiritual powers of wickedness, which have fallen from their natural sublimity into the depth of malice; and these, as turbulent and seditious, and fluctuating with the tumults of the passions, are called seas, on account of the easy change and instability of voluntary motions. But let us reject reasonings of this sort as confused dreams and old wives' tales; let us consider that water exists, and let us understand the separation made from the firmament according to the reason given.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Ac si quando ad communis universorum Domini glorificationem aquæ quce super cælos sunt (Psalm. CXLVIII) assumuntur, non propterea eas Atcamus esse naturam ratione utentem. Nec enim cœli idcirco animati sunt, quod enarrant gloriam Dei (Psal. XVIII); nec firmamentum animai est præditum sensu, quoniam opera manuum ejus annuntiat. Hæc Basilius. Attendendum porro est auditoribus, Patrem illo modo loquendi usum, Sermo quidam nobis est ad eos qui sunt ab Ecclesia, » de Origene disserere, a Dei gratia et saucta Dei Ecclesia expulso, ejusque sequacibus: non enim dixit, ad eoe qui sunt in Ecclesia, sed,« Sermo quidam nobis est ad eosqui sant ab Ecclesia; et per illud quidem quod dicit, nobis, Ecclesiæ homines significavit; per illud autem, qui sunt ab Ecclesia, »dejectos ab ipsa denotavit.\n\nUnum autem ac solum impio Origeni studium fuit, paganorum errorem confirmare, et imbecilliorum animis zizania inserere. Quamobrem hoc quoque risu sane dignum, ab eo tamen dictum, de hominum ex mortuis resurrectione, adjungere decrevimus. Affirmavit, in resurrectione corpora hominum orbiculata suscitari. dementiam atque inseitiam hominis insani, et paganorum disciplinae explicatoris! qui mente caecutiens, studensque Christianorum fidei miscere fabulas, ipsam Christianorum spem ac salutem, hoc est, promissam nobis resurrectionem, nixus est contumelia violare, ne resurrectionem quidem Domini reveritus.","english":"But if at any time the waters that are above the heavens are taken up for the common glorification of the Lord of all (Psalm 148), it does not follow that they are a nature endowed with reason. For neither are the heavens animate for the reason that they declare the glory of God (Psalm 18); nor is the firmament endowed with animate sense, because it announces the works of his hands. So says Basil. Furthermore, the hearers must note that the Father, in that manner of speaking, used the words \"A certain discourse of ours is directed to those who are from the Church\" when discoursing about Origen, who was expelled from the grace of God and from God's holy Church, and about his followers. For he did not say \"to those who are in the Church,\" but \"A certain discourse of ours is directed to those who are from the Church\"; and by saying \"ours,\" he signified the men of the Church, while by saying \"those who are from the Church,\" he denoted those cast out from it.\n\nBut the one and only pursuit of the impious Origen was to confirm the error of the pagans and to sow tares in the minds of the weaker. Wherefore we have decided to add also this saying of his, which is truly worthy of laughter, concerning the resurrection of men from the dead. He affirmed that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised up spherical. O the madness and ignorance of a demented man, and an expounder of the discipline of the pagans! who, blinded in mind and eager to mingle the fables of the pagans with the faith of the Christians, strove to violate with insult the very hope and salvation of the Christians, that is, the resurrection promised to us, not even reverencing the resurrection of the Lord.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Resurgens enim Dominus ex mortuis, et primitiæ dormientium factus (Joan. xx), discipulis visus est, eisque ostendit foramina manuum ac pedum, et plagam lateris: et post resurrectionem comedit, non ut cibo indigens, sed ut eo modo resuscitati corporis naturam confirmaret. Et quidem cum Dominus ascenderet, angelos ad discipulos dixit: Hic Jesus qui assumptus est a vobis in coelum, sic veniet quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in cælum (Act. I). Quod si, ut insanit Origenes, orbiculatum erat corpus Domini, quomodo potuit demonstrare manuum ac pedum foramina, aut lateris plagam? aut quomodo comedere potuit, aut omnino a discipulis agnosci? Et quoniam. modo sanctorum corpora quae post Domini resurrectionem surrexerunt (Matth. XXVII), et in sancta civitate apparuerunt, potuere ab aliis agnosci, siquidem in alia erant figura atque fuerant in vita? In fidei ergo petra nullo modo stabilitus, sed hujusmodi, atque his multo atrociores blasphemias impius Origenes cum edidisset, nihil mirum est, eum in ipso martyrii articulo Christum abnegasse, cultamque a paganis deorum multitudinem, quam ipse inducit, adorasse. Atque id Dei providentia factum est, ne in Ecclesia pro martyre acciperetur, atque inde gregi Ghristi inferretur aliquid detrimenti.","english":"For the Lord, rising again from the dead and becoming the firstfruits of those who sleep (John 20), appeared to his disciples and showed them the holes in his hands and feet and the wound in his side; and after the resurrection he ate, not as one needing food, but to confirm in that manner the nature of a resurrected body. And indeed, when the Lord ascended, the angels said to the disciples: This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will come in the same way as you saw him going into heaven (Acts 1). But if, as Origen raves, the Lord's body was spherical, how could he show the holes in his hands and feet, or the wound in his side? Or how could he eat, or be recognized at all by the disciples? And since the bodies of the saints that rose after the Lord's resurrection (Matthew 27) and appeared in the holy city could be recognized by others, surely they were in a different form than they had been in life? Therefore, in no way established upon the rock of faith, but having published such blasphemies, and others far more atrocious than these, the impious Origen—it is no wonder that at the very moment of martyrdom he denied Christ and adored the multitude of the gods cultivated by the pagans, which he himself introduces. And this was done by the providence of God, lest he be accepted in the Church as a martyr, and lest from that source some harm be brought upon the flock of Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"Nam si eliam nunc simt qui de ejus quidem ruina confiteantur, doctrinam vero asserant, an non eam tanquam martyris ac Patris eraut defensuri, si contigisset eum, nulla idolis exhibita adoralione, consummari? Nemo enim veritatis retinens excidit a Deo, ab eoque deseritur, juxta quod dicit divina Scriptura: Respicite, filii, nationes hominum, et scietis quia nullus speravit in Domino et confusus eat. Quia enim permansit in mandatis ejus, et derelictus est? aut quis invocavit eum, et despexit illum (Eccl. II)? Impius autem Origenes blasphemias suas non seipso tenus statuit, sed propriis scriptis in multos alios suum errorem transmisit, ut in eum valde conveniat sancti apostol Pauli vox, quae dicit: Quorumdam hominum peccata manifesta sunt, præcedentia ad judicium; quosdam autem et subsequuntur (1 Tim. v). Nam ejus error;, successio in infirmiorum irrepens animas, facit ut eum sequantur quae a principio commissa ab ipso peccata sunt.","english":"For if even now there are those who confess his ruin, yet assert his teaching, would they not have defended it as that of a martyr and a father, had it happened that he was brought to his end without any adoration shown to idols? For no one who retains the truth falls away from God or is deserted by him, according to what the divine Scripture says: Look, children, at the nations of men, and know that no one has hoped in the Lord and been confounded. For who has remained in his commandments and been forsaken? Or who has called upon him and been despised (Eccl. 2)? But the impious Origen did not confine his blasphemies to himself alone, but through his own writings transmitted his error to many others, so that the voice of the holy apostle Paul applies strongly to him, which says: The sins of some men are manifest, going before them to judgment; but some also follow after (1 Tim 5). For his error, creeping by succession into the souls of the weaker, causes the sins that were committed by him from the beginning to follow after him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Quasi enim iis qui Origenis placita sequuntur, non satis sit de præexistentia animarum impietas, cæteraque ejus vaniloquentia, blasphemiaeque de sancta Trinitate: hoc quoque proprio errori adjungunt, ducem et auctorem habentes perversam ejus disciplinam, ut dicant, omnium impiorum hominum, ac praeterea daemonum poenam finem habituram esse, restitutumque iri tum impios homines, tum dæmones in pristinum ordinem suum. Hæc cum dicunt, iguavoa homines efficiunt in Dei præceptis exsequendis, eos avertentes ab angusta et arcta via, et in latae ac spatiosae errorem inducentes. Omnino autem adversantur magni Dei et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi dictis; ipse enim in sancto Evangelio docet, impios quidem ituros in aeternum supplicium, justos vero in aeternam vitam (Matth. xxv); rursusque dicit iis qui a dextris sunt: Venite, benedicti Patris mei, possidete paratum vobis regnum a constitutione mundi; iis vero qui a sinistris: Ite a me, maledicti, in ignem atternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis ejus (Ibidem). Cum igitur aperte Dominus in sancto Evangelio indesinens et supplicium et regnum denuntiet, perspicuum est hos Origenis deliramenta sententiis Domini anteferre. Ex hoc quoque illorum amentia redarguitur. Si quis enim juxta illius nugas ponat supplicium desiturum, necesse est hunc et promissæ juStis vita æternæ statuere finem: aeque enim in utroque aeternum ponitur.","english":"For it is as if those who follow Origen's teachings are not sufficiently impious with the pre-existence of souls and his other empty babblings and blasphemies against the holy Trinity; they also add this to their own error, having his perverse doctrine as their guide and author, so as to say that the punishment of all impious men, and besides of demons, will have an end, and that both impious men and demons will be restored to their former order. When they say these things, they make men slothful in carrying out God's commandments, turning them away from the narrow and strait way, and leading them into the error of the broad and spacious way. But they are wholly opposed to the words of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ; for he himself teaches in the holy Gospel that the impious will indeed go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Matt. 25); and again he says to those on his right: Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; but to those on his left: Go from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels (Ibidem). Since therefore the Lord openly in the holy Gospel proclaims both unceasing punishment and the kingdom, it is clear that these men prefer Origen's ravings to the words of the Lord. From this too their madness is refuted. For if anyone, according to his trifles, supposes that punishment will cease, he must also set an end to the eternal life promised to the righteous; for in both alike \"eternal\" is used.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"Si autem et poena et fruitio gloria habent finem, cur incarnatio fuit Domini nostri esu Christi? cur crucifixio, et mors, et sepultura, et resurrectio Domini? quod commodum iis qui bonum certamen certaverunt, et pro Christo martyrium subierunt, si et daemoncs et homines impii eumdem quem sancti ordinem redintegratione habituri sunt? Verum hoc in eorum capita vertatur, qui haec fabulantur. Nam Christi verba in fidelinm mentibus inconcussa manent, atque in ipsa rerum veritate.\n\nQui porro Origenis impronam opinionem tuentur, firma hæc argumenta fugientes, suumque conantes tegere errorem, quaedam sanctorum Patrum dicta male excipientes, pravcque ex sententia sua interpretantes, proprio morbo accommodant: quod etiam in divinis faciunt Scripturis. Nos autem ex ipsis sanctis Patribus ostendemus inanes ac futiles eorum rationes esse. Ilaec igitur scribit sanctus Gregorius Theologus in apologetica oratione: Nobis vero, quibus periclitatur salus animae beatae atque immortalis, quaeque sempiternam aditura est vel pœnam vel laudem, propter malitiam aut virtutem, quanti faciendum est hoc certamen, aut quanta scientia opus est?","english":"But if both punishment and the enjoyment of glory have an end, why was the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ? Why the crucifixion, and death, and burial, and resurrection of the Lord? What benefit is there for those who have fought the good fight and undergone martyrdom for Christ, if both demons and impious men are to have the same order as the saints in the restoration? But let this fall upon the heads of those who invent such fables. For the words of Christ remain unshaken in the minds of the faithful, and in the very truth of things.\n\nFurthermore, those who defend Origen's infamous opinion, fleeing these firm arguments and attempting to conceal their own error, misinterpreting certain sayings of the holy Fathers and interpreting them perversely according to their own meaning, accommodate them to their own disease; which they also do with the divine Scriptures. But we shall show from the holy Fathers themselves that their reasonings are empty and worthless. So, then, Saint Gregory the Theologian writes this in his apologetic oration: But for us, whose salvation is at risk—the salvation of the blessed and immortal soul, which is destined to undergo either eternal punishment or praise, according to malice or virtue—how great a value must be placed on this contest, or how great a knowledge is needed?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"Et post pauca: Qua falsa defensione, qua persuasione artificiosa, quonam commento veritatem oppugnante circumvenietur jus, ac falletur rectum judicium, quod omnibus omnia in Statera ponit, facta, dicta, cogitationesque omnes, ac nequiter commissa melioribus repensat, ut vincat quod propendet, sententiaque secundum plura dicatur, quam nulla excipiat pfovocatio, non superior judex, non defensio aliorum factorum, non oleum vel a prudentibus virginibus sumptum (Matth. xxv), vel ab iis qui deficientibus lampadibus vendant, non peenitentia divitis qui flamma crucietur (Lue. XVI) suorumque necessariorum quaerat emendationem, non ad mutationem praefinita dies: sed eertum ac stabile jus, et formidolosom, et ultimum, et æquius justiusque, quam quantus est terror, quinimo propter justitiam terribile cum tbroni ponuntur, et Antiquus dierum sedet, et libri aperiuntur, et fluvius igneus trahitur, et lux ante ipsum, et tenebræ paratæ: et eunt qui bona fecerunt in resurrectionem vitae (Joan.","english":"And after a few words: By what false defense, by what cunning persuasion, by what contrivance opposing the truth will justice be circumvented, and right judgment be deceived—that judgment which weighs all things in the balance for all, reckoning deeds, words, and all thoughts, and even wicked deeds against better ones, so that what inclines may prevail, and sentence be given according to the greater number—so that no appeal may receive it, no higher judge, no defense of other deeds, no oil taken by the wise virgins (Matt. 25), or from those who sell to them when their lamps fail, no repentance of the rich man who is tormented in flame (Luke 16) seeking amendment of his own and of his kinsmen, no day appointed beforehand for change; but a certain and stable law, both fearful and final, and more equitable and just than all the terror it inspires—nay rather, terrible because of justice—when thrones are set, and the Ancient of Days sits, and the books are opened, and the fiery river is drawn forth, and the light before him, and the darkness prepared; and they go who have done good into the resurrection of life (John","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"III), quae nunc in Christo absconditur9 postmodum vero cum eo apparet; qui vero mala egerunt in resurrectionem judicii; quod qui non credunt, jam adjudicati damnatique sunt a Verbo, quod eos judicavit; ac alios quidem lux ineffabilis excipit, et sanctæ regnantisque Trinitatis gratia, apertius puriusque effulgentis, ac totam se toti menti inserentis: quod utique solum regnum coelorum esse duco: alios vero una cum aliis malis tormentum, vei potius ante alia projectum esse a Deo, et conscientiæ turpitudo ac verecundia nullum finem habens. »\n\nBasilii episcopi Caesareae Cappadociae, ex ejus libro Regularum. Interrogatio: Si jtum dicit, Vapulabit multis, tum paucis (Luc. xu): quo pacto quidam dicunt, nullum finem supplicii fore iis qui poena afficiuntur? Responsio: Quae ambigua sunt, ac videntur obscure esse dicta in quibusdam locis divinitus inspiratae Scripturae, alibi ab aliis quae confessa et aperta sunt, declarantur. Cum ergo Dominus pronuntiarit: Ibunt hi in supplicium aeternum, justi autem in vitam æternam (Matth. xxv); et alicubi mittat nos in ignem xternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis ejus; atque alias nominet gehennam ignis, et adjungat: Ubi vermis eorum non moritur, et ignis non exstinguitur (Marc. IX): ac rursus per prophetam de quibusdam prædixerit: Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis non exstinguetur (Isa.","english":"which is now hidden in Christ, but afterward will appear with him; but those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment; that those who do not believe have already been judged and condemned by the Word, which judged them; and that some indeed an ineffable light receives, and the grace of the holy and reigning Trinity, shining forth more openly and more purely, and insinuating itself wholly into the whole mind—which I consider to be the only kingdom of heaven; but others, together with other evils, torment, or rather to have been cast forth by God before other things, and the shame and disgrace of conscience having no end.\n\nOf Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, from his book of Rules. Question: If he says, He shall be beaten with many stripes, and then with few (Luke 12), how do some say that there will be no end of punishment for those who are afflicted with penalty? Answer: Those things which are ambiguous, and seem to be obscurely spoken in certain places of the divinely inspired Scripture, are clarified elsewhere by other things which are confessed and open. Since therefore the Lord has declared: These shall go into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (Matt. 25); and somewhere sends us into eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels; and elsewhere names the gehenna of fire, and adds: Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not extinguished (Mark 9); and again through the prophet foretold concerning certain ones: Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished (Isa.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"LXVI): cum hæc atque hujusmodi saepe a divinitus inspirata Scriptura proponantur, unum hoc quoque est diaboli artis et astutiæ, ut multi homines, veluti obliti talium tantarumque Domini sententiarum, finem sibi audeant poenarum peccati in posterum adumbrare. Nam si aeterni supplicii quandoque finis est futurus, omnino habebit ct vita aeterna finem; si in vita non sic evangelici dicli sensum accipimus, quae ratio est supplicio aeterno finem statuere? Æterni enim adjonctio pariter in utroque ponitur. Ibunt enim, inquit, hi in supplicium æternum, justi autem in vitam æternam. (Matth. xxv). Ejusdem e sermone adhortalorio ad sanctum baptisma: Propter brevem ac temporariam peccati voluptatem sempiterna crucior poena: propter voluptatem carnis, aeterno igni addieor.. Sancti Joannis episcopi Constantinopoleos prima ad Theodorum monachum epistola: Hæc in mente jugiter habeas, ct fluvium ignis: Fluvius enim igneus rapidusque egrediebatur a facie ejus (Dan. xvn). Nou est quod quisquam ei deditus igni, supplicii finem exspectet. Verum improbae saeculi hujus voluptates ab umbris somniisque nihil differunt; priusquam enim peccatum ad finem pervenerit, exstinguitur voluptas; suppliciorum vero, quae pro flagitiis suscipiuntur, nullus est finis. » Ejusdem ex commentariis in primam ad Corinthios Epistolam: « Non levis nobis hinc proposita quaestio est, sed de rebus valde necessariis.","english":"(66) Since these things and things of this kind are often set forth by divinely inspired Scripture, this too is a device and cunning of the devil, that many men, as if forgetful of such and so great sentences of the Lord, dare to sketch out for themselves an end of the punishments of sin hereafter. For if there is ever to be an end of eternal punishment, eternal life will altogether have an end as well; if we do not thus accept the sense of the evangelical saying concerning life, what reason is there to set an end to eternal punishment? For the addition of \"eternal\" is placed equally in both. For, he says, these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just into eternal life. (Matthew 25). From the same author's exhortatory discourse to holy baptism: For a brief and temporary pleasure of sin, everlasting torment of punishment; for the pleasure of the flesh, I am cast into eternal fire. From the first epistle of Saint John, bishop of Constantinople, to the monk Theodore: Have these things continually in mind, and the river of fire: for a river of fire, rapid and swift, came forth from his face (Daniel 7). There is no one who, given over to that fire, should expect an end of punishment. But the wicked pleasures of this world differ in nothing from shadows and dreams; for before sin has reached its end, the pleasure is extinguished; but of the punishments which are undergone for crimes, there is no end. From the same author's commentaries on the first Epistle to the Corinthians: Not a light question is set before us here, but one concerning matters of the greatest necessity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"Quærunt omnes homines, ignis gehennae sitne finem habiturus: non habiturum pronuntiavit Dominus, cum diceret: Ignis eorum non exstinguetur, et vermis eorum non morietur (Marc. IX). Paulus vero eum perennem ostendens ait: Peccatores pœnas dabunt in interitu æterna. (11 Thess. i). Quare cum divina nos Scriptura sanctique Patres edoceant, nullum finem esse impiorum supplicii, dæmonumque qui ab illis coluntur: quam restitutionem imaginantur, qui cum Origene sentiunt, ubi suppliciorum nullus est exitus! Sancta enim Christi Ecclesia, quemadmodum justis indesinentem praedicat vitam aeternam, ita impios perpetuo supplicia manere tradit. Atque hæc quidem in his. Nos porro paucis e multas divinae Scripturæ sanctorumque Patrum auctoritatibus afferendas esse perspeximus, ad confutandam Origenistarum impietaLem.","english":"All men ask whether the fire of Gehenna will have an end: the Lord declared that it will not, when he said: Their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die (Mark 9). But Paul, showing it to be everlasting, says: Sinners shall pay penalties in eternal destruction (2 Thess 1). Therefore, since divine Scripture and the holy Fathers teach us that there is no end to the punishment of the impious, and of the demons who are worshiped by them, how do those who agree with Origen imagine a restoration, where there is no escape from punishments? For the holy Church of Christ, just as she proclaims unceasing eternal life for the righteous, so she hands down that punishments remain forever for the impious. And these things indeed are in these. We, moreover, have seen that a few out of many authorities of divine Scripture and of the holy Fathers must be brought forward to confute the impiety of the Origenists.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"Cum autem velimus omne scandalum a sanctissin1a Ecclesia propulsare, ut nulla in ea macula relinquatur; obsequentes divinis Scripturis sanctisque Patribus qui ipsum Origenem ac hujusmodi sceleratam impiamque ejus doctrinam profligarunt, ac juro anathemati subjecerunt, hanc epistolam ad tuam beatitudinem dedimus, qua eam hortamur ut omnium qui in hac regia urbe nunc degunt, sanctissimorum episcoporum conventum habeat, ae Deo amabilissimotum praefectorum sanctis, quae hic sunt, monasteriis, faciatque ut omnes in scriptis praefatum impium ac Deo repugnantem Origenem, qui et Adamantius, qui presbyter fuit sanctissimae Ecclesiae Alexandriæ, ac ejus nefaria impiaque dogmata, capitulaque omnia quae inferius ponuntur, omnimodis anathematizent: exemplaque dimittas eorum quae a beatitudine tua ob hanc causam gesta fuerint, ad alios omnes sanctissimos episcopos praefectosque venerabilium monasteriorum: ut et ipsi subscriptione propria anathematizent Origenem scelestaque ejus dogmata, cum omnibus qui declarabuntur, hæreticis.","english":"But since we wish to drive away every scandal from the most holy Church, so that no stain may remain in her, obeying the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers who struck down this same Origen and his wicked and impious doctrine of this kind, and subjected them to the anathema of an oath, we have given this letter to your Beatitude, in which we exhort you to convene a council of all the most holy bishops who now dwell in this royal city, and, with the most God-beloved prefects, of the holy monasteries which are here, and to bring it about that all, in writing, anathematize in every way the aforesaid impious and God-opposing Origen, who is also called Adamantius, who was a presbyter of the most holy Church of Alexandria, and his abominable and impious doctrines, and all the chapters which are set down below; and that you send copies of what has been done by your Beatitude for this cause to all the other most holy bishops and to the prefects of the venerable monasteries, so that they too, by their own subscription, may anathematize Origen and his wicked doctrines, together with all the heretics who shall be declared.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"In posterum autem, ne aliter ordinentur episcopi, aut monasteriorum praefecti, nisi prius cum aliis omnibus hæreticis, qui de more in editis libellis anathematizantur, id est, Sabellio, Ario, Apollinario, Nestorio, Eutyche, Dioscoro, Timotheo Æluro, et Petro Moggo, et Anthimo Trapezuntis, Theodosio Alexandriae, Petro qui fuit Antiochiæ, et Petro qui Apameæ, et Severo olim Antiochiæ, prædictum etiam Origenem, qui paganorum Arianorumque insania laboravit, una cum exsecrabilibus impiisque ejus dogmatibus anathematizent. Omnibus enim prædicendum est, ne omnino quisquam audeat talem hæreticum, aut ejus expositiones defendere, sed eas unusquisque ex toto animo et tota cogitatione oderit et aversetur, et anathematizet, ut a Christiana traditione alienas, et simpliciorum animabus gravem afferentes luem ac pestem.\n\nHaec porro eadem scripsimus non solum ad sano titatem tuam, sed etiam ad sanctissimum et beatissimum papam senioris Romae et patriarcham Vigilium, et ad caeteros omnes sanctissimos episcopos et patriarchas, id est, Alexandriae, Theopoleos, et Dierosolymorum, ut et hi huic rei prospiciant, et haec finem adipiscantur. Cum vero cupiamus, omnes Christianos cognoscere scripta Origenis prorsus a vera Christianorum fide aliena esse, ex multis immensisque ejus blasphemiis paucas ad verbum apponendas esse censuimus. Sic autem habent.","english":"For the future, however, let no bishops or heads of monasteries be ordained otherwise than that they first anathematize, together with all the other heretics who are customarily anathematized in published libelli—that is, Sabellius, Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and Peter Mongus, and Anthimus of Trebizond, Theodosius of Alexandria, Peter who was of Antioch, and Peter who was of Apamea, and Severus formerly of Antioch, and also the aforementioned Origen, who labored under the madness of the pagans and Arians—together with his execrable and impious doctrines. For it must be proclaimed to all that no one at all may dare to defend such a heretic or his expositions, but each person must hate and abhor them with his whole soul and whole mind, and anathematize them, as alien to the Christian tradition and as bringing a grave plague and pestilence upon the souls of the simpler folk.\n\nFurthermore, we have written these same things not only to your soundness, but also to the most holy and most blessed pope of elder Rome and patriarch Vigilius, and to all the other most holy bishops and patriarchs—that is, of Alexandria, of Theopolis, and of Jerusalem—so that these also may provide for this matter, and these things may reach their end. But since we desire all Christians to know that the writings of Origen are wholly alien to the true faith of the Christians, we have judged that a few out of his many immense blasphemies should be appended word for word. They are as follows.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"Quod minor sit Filius Patre, et Spiritus Filio, e primo libro Periarchon.\n\nQuod Deus quidem et Pater omnia continens, ad unumquodque entium pervenit, esse unicuique impertiens de suo; a esse enim est minus: quod verum Patrem Filius ad sola rationabilia pervenit; est enim secundus a Patre: adhuc etiam minor est Spiritus sanctus, ad solos sanctos perveniens. Ita ex hoc major est potestas Patris prae filio et Spiritu sancto: ampliorque Filii prae Spiritu sancto, ac rursum praestantior sancti Spiritus potestas præ aliis entibus sanctis.\n\nQuod finita est Dei et Patris potestas, e secundo libro ejusdem voluminis.\n\nFinitam enim esse et potestatem Dei dicendum: nec, prætextu laudis, circumscriptio ejus tollenda est. Et paulo post: Tanta enim fecit, quanta sub manum comprehendere et habere poterat, et continere sub providentia sua: quemadmodum et tantam construxit materiam, quantam administrare et exornare poterat.","english":"That the Son is less than the Father, and the Spirit than the Son, from the first book of Periarchon.\n\nThat God indeed, even the Father, containing all things, reaches each one of existing things, imparting to each of them being from what is his own; for to be is less than he is: but the true Father's Son reaches only rational beings; for he is second from the Father: and further, the Holy Spirit is even less, reaching only the saints. Thus from this the power of the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit: and the Son's is ampler than the Holy Spirit's, and again the power of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than the other holy beings.\n\nThat the power of God and the Father is finite, from the second book of the same volume.\n\nFor it must be said that even the power of God is finite: nor, under the pretext of praise, is his circumscription to be removed. And a little later: For he made as many things as he could comprehend and hold under his hand, and contain under his providence: just as he also constructed as much matter as he could administer and adorn.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"Ejusdem ex quarto libro ejusdem voluminis.\n\nNemo autem sermone offendatur, si modum statui. mus Dei etiam potestati. Infinita enim complecti, natura impossibile est, nam cum semel finita sint quae Deus ipse comprehendit, necesse est Jerminum esse ad quot usque finita ipse sufficiat.\n\nQuod creatura et factus Filius est, ex eodem libro.\n\nHic Filius de voluntate Patris generatus, qui est imago Dei invisibilis, et splendor gloriæ ejus, et figura substantiæ ejus, primogenitus omnia creaturæ, creatura, sapientia (Coloss. I; Hebr. I; I Cor. v). Ipsa enim Sapientia dicit: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera ipsius (Prov. IX).\n\nSi vero Pater omnia continet, et Filius est ex omnium numero, liquet ipsum etiam contineri. Quærat alius quispiam, num verum sit aeque Deum a se ipso coguosci, atque ab Unigenito; asseretque verum esse in omnibus dictum illud: Qui misit me Pater, major me est (Joan. et XIV). Quare intelligendo etiam Pater, amplius, clarius, perfectiusque a seipso Intelligitur quam a Filio.","english":"From the same author, from the fourth book of the same volume.\n\nBut let no one be offended at my words if I set a limit even to the power of God. For to comprehend infinite things is by nature impossible; for since the things which God himself comprehends are once for all finite, there must necessarily be a limit as to how many finite things he himself is sufficient for.\n\nThat the Son is a creature and made, from the same book.\n\nThis Son, begotten by the will of the Father, who is the image of the invisible God, and the brightness of his glory, and the express figure of his substance, the firstborn of every creature, a creature, Wisdom (Colossians 1; Hebrews 1; 1 Corinthians 5). For Wisdom herself says: The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works (Proverbs 9).\n\nBut if the Father contains all things, and the Son is among the number of all things, it is clear that he too is contained. Let someone else ask whether it is equally true that God is known by himself and by the Only-begotten; and he will assert that what is said in all the passages is true: He who sent me, the Father, is greater than I (John and 14). Wherefore, even in understanding, the Father is understood more fully, more clearly, and more perfectly by himself than by the Son.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"Ex primo ejusdem libri volumine.\n\nItaque nos facti ad imaginem habemus Filium, ut pote veritatem, pulchrarum in nobis formationum exemplar. Quod porro nos sumus ad ipsum Filium, est ipse ad Patrem, qui veritas est.\n\nEjusdem ex eodem libro.\n\nIta igitur censeo de Salvatore etiam commode dici posse, quod sit Dei bonitatis imago, non autem ipsa bonitas, fortassis etiam Filius bonus, sed uon simpliciter bonus. Et quemadmodum Dei invisibilis est imago, et propterea Deus, non tamen is, de quo Christus ipse ait: Ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum (Joan. XVII): ita bonitatis imago, non tamen ut Pa. ter incommutabiliter.\n\nQuod Filium cum Spiritu sancto creaturam vocans, annumeraverit aliis creaturis; idcirco ministratoria vocaverit ipsos animalia, ex quarto Periarchon libro.\n\nQuod igitur quæcunque alia res praeter Patrem ac Deum universorum, creata est, eadem consequentia suademur. Et post pauca: Aiebat autem Hebræus, duo illa seraphim apud Isaiam sex alas habentia, clamantia alterum ad alterum, et dicentia: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus sabaoth (Jer. VI), esse Dei unigenitum, et Spiritum sanctum. Nos autem arbitramur, illud etiam quod habetur in cantico Haba. cuc: In medio duorum animalium cognosceris (Habac. III), referendum esse in Christum et Spiritum sanctum.","english":"From the first volume of the same book.\n\nTherefore we, who are made in the image, have the Son as our exemplar of the beautiful formations within us, inasmuch as he is the truth. Moreover, what we are in relation to the Son himself, that the Son himself is in relation to the Father, who is the truth.\n\nFrom the same author, from the same book.\n\nI therefore judge that it can fittingly be said even of the Savior that he is the image of God's goodness, but not goodness itself; perhaps also that the Son is good, but not simply good. And just as he is the image of the invisible God, and is for that reason God, yet not that God of whom Christ himself says, \"That they may know you, the only true God\" (John 17), so too he is the image of goodness, yet not as the Father is, immutably.\n\nThat, in calling the Son together with the Holy Spirit a creature, he numbered them among the other creatures; and that for this reason he called them ministering animals, from the fourth book of the Peri Archon.\n\nWhatever other thing, therefore, besides the Father and God of all things, has been created, by the same reasoning we are persuaded. And after a few words: The Hebrew said that those two seraphim in Isaiah, having six wings, crying one to another and saying, \"Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts\" (Isa. 6), are the only-begotten of God and the Holy Spirit. But we judge that what is also found in the canticle of Habakkuk, \"In the midst of two animals you shall be known\" (Hab. 3), must be referred to Christ and the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"Ex secundo libro Periarchon: quod purum hominem dominum vocet.\n\nIdcirco et homo factus est Christus suo merito hoc sortitus, ut propheta testatur, inquiens: Dilexisti juatitiam, et odisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo lætitiæ præ participibus tuis (Prov. XLIV). Decebat siquidem illum, qui nunquam ab Unigenito separatus est, coexistere Unigenito, et una cum ipso conglorificari.\n\nQuod creaturæ coæternæ sint Deo, ex primo libro Periarchon.\n\nQui vero absurdum non sit, ut Deus ex non habente aliquid eorum quae sibi conveniunt, fiat babens? Quoniam igitur nunquam non fuit omnipotens, aeterna haec esse decet, propter quae omnipotens est. Erant igitur semper ipsius dominio subjecta, ipso utentia principe.\n\nEx eodem libro.\n\nGenera omnia et species semper erant: non ita de singularibus differentibus numero dixerit quispiam. Verumtamen utrinque declarantur, Deum non fecisse creandi initium, cum aliquando fuerit in otio a.","english":"From the second book of Periarchon: that he calls the Lord a mere man.\n\nFor this reason Christ also became man, having obtained this by his own merit, as the prophet testifies, saying: You have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows (Prov. 44). For it was fitting that he who was never separated from the Only-Begotten should coexist with the Only-Begotten and be glorified together with him.\n\nThat creatures are coeternal with God, from the first book of Periarchon.\n\nBut what absurdity is it that God should become one having something of the things that are fitting to him, from one not having it? Since, therefore, he was never not omnipotent, it is fitting that those things be eternal for the sake of which he is omnipotent. They were therefore always subject to his dominion, using him as their prince.\n\nFrom the same book.\n\nAll genera and species always existed; one would not say so of singulars differing in number. Nevertheless, both are declared, that God did not make a beginning of creating, since he was at some time at leisure from","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"De animarum præexistentia, ex primo libro Periarchon.\n\nEx propna culpa minime sibi vigilanter attendentium fiunt citius aut serius delapsioncs, idque vel ad longiora tempora, vel ad breviora; quod judicium diurnum propter hanc causam bonis aut malis uniuscujusque motionibus dignam commensurct retributionem. Hic quidem in futura mundi dispositione ha. bebit ordinem angelicum, aut virtutem principatus, aut potestatem in aliquos, aut thronum regno subditorum, aut dominationem in servos. Qui vero non multum exciderunt, habebunt, quam diximus, oeconomiam, et adjumentum. Atque ita ut plurimum ex iis qui sunt sub principatibus, et potestatibus, et thronis et dominationibus, forte etiam aliquando loco ipsorum constituetur genus humanum uno in mundo.\n\nEx eodem libro: Quod si daemones mutentur in melius, naturam aliquando complebunt humanam.","english":"Concerning the pre-existence of souls, from the first book of Periarchon.\n\nFrom their own fault—of those who do not attend to themselves with sufficient vigilance—falls come more quickly or more slowly, and either into longer periods of time or shorter; because the daily judgment, on this account, measures out a worthy recompense to the good or evil motions of each one. This one indeed, in the future arrangement of the world, will have the angelic order, or the power of principality, or authority over some, or a throne of a kingdom of subjects, or dominion over servants. But those who have not fallen far will have, as we said, a stewardship and a support. And thus for the most part, from among those who are under principalities and powers and thrones and dominions, perhaps even at some time the human race will be established in their place, in one world.\n\nFrom the same book: But if demons are changed for the better, they will at some time complete the human nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"Puto autem posse ex iis qui subditi sunt pejoribus, principatibus et potestatibus, mundique rectoribus per singulos mundos, aut mentes alicujus mundi eitius beneficium accipientes, volentesque in posterum ab ipsis mutari, complere aliquando genus humanum.\n\nDe eo qui desuper factu est in corpus delapsu.\n\nIta cum mundus ex summa constet varietate, tantamque ratione utentium contineat differentiam, quid aliud dicendum est fuisse causæ ut subsistat, quam varios delabendi modos eorum qui non similiter dofluunt ab unitate? Et aquaticam nonnunquam anima eligit vitam.\n\nEx secundo Periarchon libro.\n\nAnima defluens a bono, et vergens ad ncquitiam, diutiusque ipsam amplectens, nisi se ab insipicntia reducat, transit ad jumenta, atque ob pravitatem efferatur. Et|paulo post: Eligitque ut brutescat, vitam etiam, ut ita dicam, aquatilem. Et forte pro merito majoris ad vitiositatem prolapsionis induit corpora aquatica talis bruti animalis.","english":"But I think that it is possible that from those who are subject to worse principalities and powers, and to the rulers of the world throughout each of the worlds, or that minds receiving the benefit of some world more quickly, and wishing thereafter to be changed by them, may at some time complete the human race.\n\nConcerning the fall of the one who was made from above into a body.\n\nThus, since the world consists of the greatest variety, and contains so great a difference among rational beings, what else must be said to have been the cause of its existence than the various modes of falling of those who do not fall from unity in the same way? And sometimes the soul chooses an aquatic life.\n\nFrom the second book of Periarchon.\n\nThe soul flowing down from the good, and tending toward wickedness, and embracing it for a longer time, unless it withdraws itself from foolishness, passes over into beasts, and by reason of depravity is made brutish. And a little later: And it chooses to become brutish, even, so to speak, an aquatic life. And perhaps, in proportion to the merit of a greater lapse into vice, such a brute animal puts on aquatic bodies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"» Ex eodem libro: Quod erit perfecta corporum depositio.\n\nQuod si subjecta Christo tandem subjicientur et Deo, corpora deponentur ab omnibus (1 Cor. xv): arbitrorque futuram tunc in non ens resolutionem; natura corporum rursus esse inceptura, si ratione utentia iterum descendant.\n\nEx tertio ejusdem tractatus libro, de eodem.\n\nCum Deus dicatur fieri omnia in omnibus (Ibidm); quemadmodum non possumus aeserere nequitiam, ita neque Deus fit omnia in omnibus, neque quod sunt bruta, ne Deus fiat quod nequitia est, et quod bruta; sed neque quod inanimata sunt, ne cum fit omnia Deus, fiat etiam quod ipsa: ita neque quod corpora, quae propria ipsorum natura in anima sunt.\n\nEx secundo Periarchon libro.\n\nEx eo quod decidit et refrixit, passa scilicet Græce vocatam psyxin a spiritali vita, facta est quæ nunc anima, Græce psyche: quae reditum quoque iii id quod ab initio fuit, admittit. Quod a propheta significari arbitror, dum ait: Revertere, anima mea, in requiem tuam (Psal. CXIX), ut totum hoc sit mens. Mens igitur facta est anima, anima vero recte factis integrata fit mens.","english":"From the same book: That there will be a perfect laying aside of bodies.\n\nBut if those subject to Christ are at last subjected also to God, bodies will be laid aside by all (1 Cor. 15); and I think that there will then be a resolution into non-being; and that the nature of bodies will begin to exist again, if those endowed with reason descend once more.\n\nFrom the third book of the same treatise, on the same subject.\n\nSince God is said to become all things in all (Ibid.); just as we cannot assert wickedness, so neither does God become all things in all, nor does God become what is brutish, nor what wickedness is, nor what is brutish; but neither does he become what inanimate things are, so that when God becomes all things, he should also become what they are; so neither does he become what bodies are, which by their own proper nature are in the soul.\n\nFrom the second book of the Periarchon.\n\nFrom that which fell and grew cold—having suffered, that is, what in Greek is called psyxin, from the spiritual life—there came to be what is now the soul, in Greek psyche; which also admits of a return to that which it was from the beginning. I think this is signified by the prophet when he says: Return, O my soul, to your rest (Ps. 119), so that this whole may be mind. Mind, therefore, became soul, and the soul, made whole by right deeds, becomes mind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Ex eodem libro, de eodem.\n\nQuemadmodum ad salvandum quod perierat venit Salvator (Luc. XIX); idque quod perierat, ubi salvum est, non dicitur amplius periisse: ita anima quam salvare venit, ut salvaret quod perierat, non est amplius anima jam salvata, neque dici potest periisse quod prius dici poterat. Expendendum adhuc. Si quemadmodum quod periit, fuit aliquando res qua non perierit, et erit aliquando cum non eril res quæ perierit; ita et anima non fuerit olim anima et erit quando non erit anima.\n\nEx quarto libro.\n\nNecesse est non præexistentem esse corporum naturam, sed per intervalla subsistere propter aliquos casus, ambientium res, quæ ratione utuntur, corporibus indigentes: facta vero emendatione perfecta, iterum hæc resolvi in nihilum, ita ut hoc fiat semper.\n\nEx primo ejusdem libri volumine: Quod sol et lund et stellæ animala.int.","english":"From the same book, on the same subject.\n\nJust as the Savior came to save what had perished (Luke 19), and that which had perished, once it is saved, is no longer said to have perished, so the soul which he came to save, in order to save what had perished, is no longer a soul once it has been saved, nor can that be said to have perished which previously could be said to have perished. This must still be weighed. If, just as what perished was at some time a thing which had not perished, and will be at some time when it will not be a thing which has perished, so too the soul was once not a soul and will be when it will not be a soul.\n\nFrom the fourth book.\n\nIt is necessary that the nature of bodies did not pre-exist, but subsists at intervals because of certain occurrences, when rational beings, who have no need of bodies, are in need of bodies; but once perfect amendment has been made, these are again resolved into nothing, so that this happens always.\n\nFrom the first volume of the same book: That the sun and the moon and the stars are living beings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Quod porro dolis anima antiquior sit alligatione ipsius ad corpus, conclusum jam est ex comparatione hominis ad ipsum: verum et e Scripturis arbitror posse hoc demonstrari.\n\nEx eodem bro.\n\nPræstat dissolvi, et esse cum Christo (Phil. I): multo enim hoc melius. bol quoque hoc ipaum, puto, dixe. rit: Præstat dissolvi, et esse cum Christo, multo enim hoc melius. Caeteram Paulus quidem, Sed manere, inquit, in carne magis necessarium propter vos (Ibidem); Sol vero dixerit: Sed permanere in hoc cœlesti corpore magis necessarium est propter revelationem filiorum Dei. Hæc eadem de luna cæterisque stellis dicendum.\n\nEx quarto ejusdem libri volumine: Quod pro dæmo nibus etiam oportet Christum crucifiyi, idque sæpe numero per sæcula futura.\n\nAtqui si vel de passione ipsa quæstionem quis moveat, audacter profecto videbitur circa loca coolestia id quærere. Verum si in coelestibus sunt spiritualia nequitiæ, sicut certe hic non erubescimus fateri crucifixum ad demolienda quæ patiendo demolitus est; ita ibi quoque simile leri concedentes, et reliqua usque ad totius saeculi consummationem nihil formldabimus.","english":"Furthermore, that the soul is older than its binding to the body is already concluded from the comparison of man to himself; but I think this can also be demonstrated from the Scriptures.\n\nFrom the same book.\n\nTo depart and be with Christ is better (Phil 1), for this is much better. I think he said this very thing too: To depart and be with Christ is better, for this is much better. But Paul indeed says, To remain in the flesh is more necessary for your sake (ibid.); but the Sun would say: But to remain in this heavenly body is more necessary for the revelation of the sons of God. The same must be said concerning the moon and the other stars.\n\nFrom the fourth volume of the same book: That Christ must also be crucified on behalf of demons, and that many times throughout ages to come.\n\nAnd yet if anyone should raise a question even about the passion itself, he will surely seem bold to inquire about heavenly places. But if the spiritual hosts of wickedness are in the heavens, as we certainly are not ashamed to confess here that he was crucified to destroy what he destroyed by suffering, so too, granting that the like happens there, we shall not shrink from the rest until the consummation of the whole age.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Ex eodem libro.\n\nQuis sana mente statuat primum, et secundum, et tertium diem, vespereque et mane fuisse sine sole, luna, et stellis?\n\nHis igitur ita se habentibus, factisque omnibus palam Origenis blasphemiis, anathematismum ia ipsum sic fieri convenit.\n\nI. Si quis dicit aut sentit præexistere hominum animas, ut pote quae antea mentes fuerint et sanctæ virtutes, satietatemque cepisse divinae contemplationis, et in deterius conversas esse, atque idcirco refrixisse a Dei charitate, et inde Græce, id est animas esse nuncupatas, demissasque esse in corpora supplicii causa: anathema sit.\n\nU. Si quis dicit aut sentit Domini animam prius exstitisse, atque unitam fuisse Deo Verbo ante incar I nationem et generationem ex Yirgine: anathema sit.\n\nIII. Si quis dicit aut sentit primum conformatum esse corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi in utero beata Virginis, ac postea unitum ei esse Deum Verbum, et animam, ut pote quae ante fuisset: anathema sit.","english":"From the same book.\n\nWho in his right mind would maintain that the first, second, and third day, with evening and morning, existed without sun, moon, and stars?\n\nThese things being so, and all the blasphemies of Origen having been openly set forth, it is fitting that the anathema against him be pronounced as follows.\n\nI. If anyone says or holds that the souls of men pre-existed, as being formerly minds and holy powers, and that they took their fill of divine contemplation and were turned to a worse state, and for this reason grew cold in the love of God, and hence in Greek were called psychai, that is, souls, and were sent down into bodies as a punishment: let him be anathema.\n\nII. If anyone says or holds that the Lord's soul existed beforehand, and was united to God the Word before the incarnation and the birth from the Virgin: let him be anathema.\n\nIII. If anyone says or holds that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the blessed Virgin, and afterwards God the Word was united to it, and a soul, as being one that had existed before: let him be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"IV. Si quis dicit aut sentit omnibus coelestibus ordinibus assimilatum esse Deum Verbum, cherubimque factum esse ipsis cherubim, et scraphim ipsis seraphim, ac omnibus plane supernis virtutibus similem esse factum: anathema sit.\n\nV. Si quis dicit aut sentit, in resurrectione corpora hominum orbiculata suscitari, nec conStetur nos suscitari rectos: anathema sit.\n\nVI. Si quis dicit coelum, et solem, et lunam, et stellas, et aquas quae super cœlos sunt, animatas et materiales [ratione præditas] esse quasdam virtutes: anathema sit.\n\nVII. Si quis dicit aut sentit Dominum Christum in futuro saeculo crucifixum iri pro dæmonibus, sicuti et pro hominibus: anathema sit.\n\nVIII. Si quis dicit aut sentit, vel finitam esse Det potestatem, vel eum tanta fecisse, quanta comprehendere potuit: anathema sit.\n\nIX. Si quis dicit aut sentit, ad tempus esse dæmonum et impiorumhominum supplicium, ejusque finem aliquando futurum, sive restitutionem et redintegrationem fore daemonum aut impiorum hominum: anathema sit.","english":"IV. If anyone says or holds that God the Word was made like all the heavenly orders, and became cherubim to the cherubim themselves, and seraphim to the seraphim themselves, and was plainly made like all the supernal powers: let him be anathema.\n\nV. If anyone says or holds that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised spherical, and does not confess that we are raised upright: let him be anathema.\n\nVI. If anyone says that heaven, and the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and the waters which are above the heavens, are certain animate and material powers [endowed with reason]: let him be anathema.\n\nVII. If anyone says or holds that the Lord Christ in the future age will be crucified for the demons, as also for men: let him be anathema.\n\nVIII. If anyone says or holds that the power of God is finite, or that he made things only as great as he could comprehend: let him be anathema.\n\nIX. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious men is for a time, and that there will sometime be an end of it, or that there will be a restoration and reintegration of demons or of impious men: let him be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"Anathema et Origeni, qui et Adamanttus, qui hæc exposuit una cum nefaria atque exsecrabili scelestaque ejus doctrina, et cuivis qui ea sentiat, aut defendat, aut ullo modo prorsus quocunque tempore tueri præsumat.\n\na Litteræ Jusliniani imperatoris ad sanctam synodum C.P. de Origene et sectatoribus ejus.\n\nStudium nostrum fuit et est, sanctam Dei et apostolicam Ecclesiam a turbis securam custodire, prout par est et ea quae quocunque modo contra orthodoxam iidem eoascuntur, condemnare.\n\nCum ergo compertum habeamus, esse Hierosolymis quosdam nimirum monachos qui Pythagoræ, Platonis Origenisque Adamantii impios errores sectentur ac doceant; existimavimus curam et inquisitionem de iis adhibendam, ne ii tandem paganicis et Manichaicis suis imposturis multos perdant. Dicunt enim ( ut de multis pauca commemoremus) mentes fuisse prorsus et numeri et nominis expertes; omniaque rationalia unum esse identitate substantiae et operationis, et virtute apud Deum Verbum per unitionem et cognitionem. Has vero mentes, ubi susceperint juxta uniuscujusque captum satietatem divinae dilectionis et contemplationis, per mutationem ipsarum in deterius, vel crassiora, vel tenuiora corpora induere et nomina sortiri, ac inde coelestes et administras substitisse virtutes.","english":"Anathema also to Origen, who is also Adamantius, who set forth these things together with his wicked, execrable, and impious doctrine, and to anyone who holds these things, or defends them, or presumes in any way whatsoever at any time to protect them.\n\na Letter of the Emperor Justinian to the holy synod of Constantinople concerning Origen and his followers.\n\nIt has been and is our concern to keep the holy Church of God and the apostolic Church safe from disturbances, as is fitting, and to condemn whatever things are in any way raised up by them against the orthodox faith.\n\nSince, then, we have learned that there are certain monks at Jerusalem who follow and teach the impious errors of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen Adamantius, we have judged that care and inquiry must be applied concerning them, lest they in the end destroy many by their pagan and Manichaean impostures. For they say (to mention a few things out of many) that minds were altogether without number and without name; and that all rational beings are one in the identity of substance and operation, and in power with God the Word through union and knowledge. But these minds, when they have received, according to each one's capacity, the satiety of divine love and contemplation, through their own change for the worse, put on either coarser or finer bodies and receive names, and from there the heavenly powers and ministers came to be.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Imo et solem, et lunam, et stellas, ut pote quæ et ipsa in rationabilium unitate sint, ex mutatione in deterius facta, hoc esse coepisse quod sunt. Ea vero rationabilia, in quibus magis Dei amor refrixerit,, hoc est animas nuncupari, et crassioribus, qualia nostra sunt corpora, immitti. Quæ autem ad extremum perversitatis venerint, ea frigidis ac caliginosis inseri corporibus, et dæmones fieri et nuncupari; ac proinde ex angelico quidem statu fieri animalem, ex animali vero dæmoniacum et humanum. Unam autem duntaxat mentem, ex tota unitate rationalium, imperturbatam perstitisse, et immotam a dilectione divina et contemplatione, eam.. que fuisse Christum regem, Deum et hominem. Affirmant etiam, corpora penitus interire: ipso Dominu primum, deinde reliquis omnibus suum corpus abji cientibus: et quod rursum omnes redeuntes ad ipsam veritatem, mentes iiunt juxta illud esse quod prius habebant: ac videlicet ipsum etiam diabolum restituendum esse, et reliquos dæmones in ipsam unitatem, atque impios et nefarios homines una cum divinis ac Deo plenis viris, cœlestibusque virtutibus; eodemque modo, quo et Christus, cum Deo esse uniendos, sicuti et prius uniti erant, atque adeo Christum plane nihil a reliquis ratione præditis differre, neque substantia, neque cognitione, neque virtute, neque operatione.","english":"Nay, even the sun, the moon, and the stars, inasmuch as they too are among the rational beings, began to be what they are from a change for the worse. But those rational beings in whom the love of God has grown colder—these are called souls—are cast into coarser bodies, such as ours are. Those, however, who have reached the utmost of perversity are implanted in cold and dark bodies and become and are called demons; and accordingly, from the angelic state one becomes animal, and from the animal state demonic and human. But only one mind, out of the whole unity of rational beings, remained undisturbed and unmoved from the love and contemplation of God, and this was Christ the king, God and man. They affirm also that bodies perish utterly: the Lord himself first, then all the rest casting off their body; and that all, returning again to the truth itself, become minds according to that which they previously had; and that indeed the devil himself is to be restored, and the rest of the demons, into that same unity, and impious and wicked men together with divine men full of God and the heavenly powers; and that in the same manner as Christ, they are to be united with God, just as they were also united before, and that Christ plainly differs in nothing from the other rational beings, neither in substance, nor in knowledge, nor in power, nor in operation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Pythagoras etenim principium omnium rerum, unitatem esse dixit, et rursum Pythagoras et Plato multitudinem quamdam animarum incorporearum esse dicentes, dicunt etiam, quod si in peccatum aliquod inciderint, in poenam demittuntur in corpora. Quocirca Plato corpus appellavit (hoc est vinculum), et (hoc est sepulcrum), eo quod anima in ipso corpore quasi vincta et sepulta sit; deinde de futuro judicio et retributione animarum rursus inquit: Anima illius qui una cum sapientiae studio puerorum amore et flagitiosa vita se polluit, per tres millenarias circuitioncs pœnas luet: et sic recuperatis alis post annorum millia a educitur ct aLit: reliquæ vcro cum ex hac vita discesserint, aliæ quidem sub terra in judicii locum delatæ poenas simul et rationem dabunt: aliae in cœlestem quemdam locum per judicium elatæ, felicitate fruentur pro vitae meritis. Est autem in promptu hujus sententiae absurditatem perspicere. Quis enim eumdocuit millenarias istas annorum conversiones, et quod post millium annorum decursum It unaquaeque anima ad suum perveniat locum? Quæ vero his interserit, ne a procacibus ipsis, quamvis libidinosis, congruum esset dici, nedum a tali ac tanto philosopho: quippe eos qui vitam puritate plenam ad extremum usque duxerunt, cum intemperantibus et puerorum amatoribus conjunxit, eisdem bonis utrosque frui dixit.","english":"For Pythagoras said that the principle of all things is unity; and again, Pythagoras and Plato, saying that there is a certain multitude of incorporeal souls, also say that if they fall into any sin, they are sent down into bodies as a punishment. Wherefore Plato called the body a bond and a tomb, because the soul is, as it were, bound and buried in the body itself; then concerning the future judgment and the recompense of souls he says again: The soul of that man who, together with the pursuit of wisdom, defiled himself with the love of boys and a shameful life, shall pay the penalty through three thousand circuits; and thus, when its wings have been recovered after thousands of years, it is brought forth and ascends; but the rest, when they have departed from this life, some indeed, having been carried beneath the earth to the place of judgment, shall both pay the penalty and give an account; others, having been raised by judgment to a certain heavenly place, shall enjoy felicity according to the merits of their life. But it is easy to perceive the absurdity of this opinion. For who taught him these thousand-year revolutions of years, and that after the course of thousands of years each soul arrives at its own place? But what he inserts among these things—that it would not be fitting to be said even by the shameless themselves, however lustful, let alone by such and so great a philosopher—namely, that he joined those who led a life full of purity to the very end with the intemperate and lovers of boys, and said that both enjoy the same goods.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"Pythagoras ergo, et Plato, et Plotinus, aliique horum sectatores, qui unico consensu animas immortales esse fatentur, eas corporibus priores affirmant, et esse quamdam animarum multitudinem, et quae delinquunt, in corpora demitti, ut dixi, et pigrorum quidem animas abire in asinos, rapacium vero in lupos, dolosorum in vulpes, mulierum amore fruentium in equos. Sed Ecclesia divinis astipulans Scripturis, animam una cum corpore creatam aflirmat, non alterum altero prius, ut vecordi Origeni visum est. Propter has igitur nefarias et perniciosas opiniones, imo potius nugas, vos hortamur, o sanctissimi Patres, It in unum collecti, subjectam expositionem diligenter perlegatis, ct singula ejus capita damnetis, et anathematizetis una cum Origene omnes qui idem sentiunt, aut senlient ad finem.\n\na CONFESSIO RECTÆ FIDEI JUSTINIANI IMPERATORIS ADVERSUS TRIA CAPITULA.","english":"Pythagoras therefore, and Plato, and Plotinus, and others of their followers, who with one consent confess that souls are immortal, affirm that they are prior to bodies, and that there is a certain multitude of souls, and that those which sin are sent down into bodies, as I said: the souls of the slothful indeed pass into asses, but those of the rapacious into wolves, of the deceitful into foxes, of those who enjoy the love of women into horses. But the Church, assenting to the divine Scriptures, affirms that the soul was created together with the body, not one before the other, as seemed to the mad Origen. On account of these impious and pernicious opinions, or rather trifles, we exhort you, O most holy Fathers, gathered together into one, diligently to read through the exposition set forth below, and to condemn each of its chapters, and to anathematize together with Origen all who think the same things, or shall think so to the end.\n\nCONFESSION OF THE RIGHT FAITH OF JUSTINIAN THE EMPEROR AGAINST THE THREE CHAPTERS.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"In nomine Dei Patris, et unigeniti ipsius Filii Jesu Christi Domini nostri et sancti Spiritus. Imperator Cæsar Christi amans, Justinianus, Alamanieus, Got thicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticu., Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, pius, felix, inclytus, victor, triumphator, semper venerabilis, Augustus, universo coetui catholicæ et apostolicæ Ecclesiæ. *\n\nScientes quod nihil aliud sic potest misericordem Deum placare, quam ut omnes Christiani unum ideuique sapiant in recta et immaculata fide, nec sint dissensiones in sancta Dei Ecclesia: necessarium putavimus, omnem occasionem interimentes eis qui scandalizantur vel qui scandalizant, rectae fidei confessionem, quae in sancta Dei Ecclesia prædicatur, praesenti edicto facere manifestam: ut et illi qui rectam fidem confitentur, firmiter eam custodiant; et illi qui adversus illam contendunt, discentes veritatem, festinent semetipsos unire sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ.","english":"In the name of God the Father, and of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. The Emperor Caesar, lover of Christ, Justinian, Alamannicus, Gothicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus, pious, fortunate, renowned, victorious, triumphant, ever venerable, Augustus, to the whole assembly of the catholic and apostolic Church.\n\nKnowing that nothing else can so appease the merciful God as that all Christians should think one and the same thing in the right and immaculate faith, and that there should be no dissensions in the holy Church of God, we have thought it necessary, removing every occasion from those who are scandalized or who scandalize, to make manifest by the present edict the confession of the right faith which is preached in the holy Church of God: so that both those who confess the right faith may keep it firmly, and those who contend against it, learning the truth, may hasten to unite themselves to the holy Church of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"Confitemur igitur credere in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, Trinitatcm consubstantialem, unam deitatem, eive naturam et substantiam et virtutem et potestatem in tribus subsistentiis sive personis adorantes, in quibus baptizati sumus, in quas credimus, in quibus confessionem dedimus, proprietates quidem separantes, deitatem autem unientes. Unitatem enim in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate adoramus, mirabilem habentem et divisionem et unitionem; unitatem quidem, secundum rationem substantae seu deitatis; Trinitatem autem, secundum proprietates, vel subsistentias, sive personas. Dividitur enim sine divisione (ut sic dicamus) et conjungitur divise. Unum enim est deitas in tribos, et tria unum, in quibus deitas est: aut ( at subtilius dicamus) ipsa tria est deitas, quæ tria Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus sanctos, cum unaquaeque persona solum intelligitur, mente separante inseparabilia, et tria unus Deus, cum simul intelliguntur propter eamdem virtutem eamdemque naturam: quoniam oportet et unum Deum confiteri, et tres subsistentias prædicare, seu tres personas, et unamquamque cum sua proprietate.","english":"We confess, therefore, that we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity, one divinity, adoring its nature and substance and virtue and power in three subsistences or persons, in whom we have been baptized, in whom we believe, in whom we have made our confession, separating indeed the properties but uniting the divinity. For we adore the unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the unity, which has a marvelous both division and union: unity indeed according to the principle of substance or divinity; but Trinity according to the properties, or subsistences, or persons. For it is divided without division (so to speak) and joined in a divided manner. For the divinity is one in three, and the three are one, in which the divinity is; or (to speak more subtly) the three themselves are the divinity, which three are God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, when each person is understood alone, the mind separating things inseparable, and the three are one God when they are understood together because of the same virtue and the same nature; since it is necessary both to confess one God and to proclaim three subsistences or three persons, and each one with its own property.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Et unitatem confitentes, conlusionem non facimus secundum Sabellium, dicentem, Trinitatem unam esse personam trinomium [trinonymum] eumdem Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum: nec dividentes proprietates, alienamus a Dei Patris substantia Filium et Spiritum sanctum, secundum Arii furorem, in tres diversas [naturas incidentes deitatem. Unus igitur Deus Pater, ex quo omnia: et unus unigenitus Filius, per quem omnia: et unus Spiritus sanctus, in quo omnia.\n\nConfitemur autem ipsum unigenitum Filium Dei, Deum Verbum, ante saecula et sine tempore ex Patre natum, non factum, in ultimis diebus propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendisse de coelis, et incarnatum esse ex Spiritu sancto, et sancta-gloriosa Dei Genitrice semper virgine Maria, et natum ex ipsa, qui est Dominus Jesus Christus, unus de sancta Trinitate, consubstantialis Deo Patri secundum deitatem, et consubstanlialis nobis idem ipse secundum humanitatem, passibilis carne, impassibilis idem ipso deitate. Non enim alius quidam est praeter Deum Verbum, qui passionem et mortem suscepit: sed ipse impassibilis et sempiternus Deus Verbum generationem carnis humanae sustinere dignatus, implevit omnia.","english":"And confessing the unity, we do not make a union in the manner of Sabellius, who says that the Trinity is one person, a three-named—the same Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; nor, dividing the properties, do we alienate the Son and the Holy Spirit from the substance of God the Father, according to the madness of Arius, falling into three diverse natures of the Godhead. One God, therefore, the Father, from whom are all things; and one only-begotten Son, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.\n\nBut we confess that the very only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, begotten of the Father before the ages and without time, not made, in the last days for us and for our salvation descended from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, and was born of her, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, consubstantial with God the Father according to the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us according to the humanity, passible in the flesh, the same impassible in the Godhead. For it is not some other besides God the Word who underwent passion and death; but he himself, impassible and eternal God the Word, deigning to undergo the generation of human flesh, fulfilled all things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"Ideo non alium Deum Verbum esse qui miracula operatus est, et alium Christum qui passus est, cognoscimus: sed unum eumdemque Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Dei Verbum incarnatum, et hominem factum, et ejusdem ipsius miracula et passiones, quas carne voluntarie sustinuit, confitemur. Non enim homo aliquis pro nobis semetipsum dedit, sed ipse Deus Verbum suum corpus pro nobis dedit, ne in hominem fides et spes nostra sit, sed in ipsurc Deum Verbum nostram fidem habeamus. Et Deum igitur eam confitentes, non abnegamus ipsum esse et hominem: et hominem dicentes eum, non abnegamus ipsum esse et Deum. Si enim Deus tantummodo esset, quomodo patiebatur? quomode crucifigebatur et moriebatur? Aliena enim ista sunt Deo. Sin autem homo solum, quomodo per passionem vincebat quomodo salvos faciebat? Quomodo vivificabat? Haec enim supra hominis naturam erant. Nunc autem idem ipse patitur, et salvos facit, et per passionem vincit, idem ipse Deus, ipse homo, utrumque a tauquam unum, utrumque tanquam solum. Unde ex utraque natura, id est ea deitate ethumanitate, unum Christum compositum dicentes, confusionem unitioni non introducimus.","english":"Therefore we do not acknowledge one God the Word who worked miracles and another Christ who suffered, but one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man, and we confess the miracles and the sufferings of the very same one, which he voluntarily endured in the flesh. For it was not some man who gave himself for us, but God the Word himself who gave his own body for us, so that our faith and hope might not be in a man, but that we might have our faith in God the Word himself. And therefore, confessing him to be God, we do not deny that he is also man; and calling him man, we do not deny that he is also God. For if he were God only, how did he suffer? How was he crucified and died? For these things are alien to God. But if he were man only, how did he conquer through suffering? How did he save? How did he give life? For these things were above the nature of man. But now the same one suffers and saves and conquers through suffering, the same one God, the same one man, both as one, both as only. Whence, saying that one Christ is composed of both natures, that is, of the divinity and the humanity, we do not introduce confusion into the union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Et in utraque autem natura, id est in divinitate et humanitate, unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Dei Verbum incarnatum, et hominem factum cognoscentes, divisionem quidem per partes, vel incisionem non inferimus uni ejus subsistentiæ: differentiam autem naturarum, ex quibus compositus est, significamus, non interemptam propter unitatem [unitionem], quoniam utraque natura in ipso est. Cum enim compositionem dicamus, necesse est confiteri et partes in toto esse, et totum in partibus cognosci. Nec enim divina natura in humanam transmutata est, nec humana natura in divinam conversa est. Magis autem intelligitur, quod utraque in proprietate et ratione suæ naturae manente, facta est unitas [unitio] secundum subsistentiam. Unitas autem secundum subsistentiam significat, quod Deus Verbum, id est una subsistentia extribus deitatis subsistentiis, non ante plasmato homini unitus est, sed in utero sanctæ 'irginis creavit sibi ex ipsa in sua subsistentia carnem animatam anima rationali et intellectuali, quod est natura humana. Hanc autem secundum subsistentiam unitatem [unitionem] Dei Verbi ad carnem docens nos et divinusApostolus dicit: Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est æqualem sese esse Deo, sed Memetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens (Philipp. II).","english":"And in both natures, that is in divinity and humanity, knowing one our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man, we do not introduce division by parts, or a cutting, into his one subsistence; but we signify the difference of the natures from which he is composed, not destroyed because of the unity, since both natures are in him. For when we speak of composition, it is necessary to confess both that the parts are in the whole and that the whole is known in the parts. For neither has the divine nature been changed into the human, nor has the human nature been converted into the divine. But rather it is understood that, while both remain in the property and reason of their own nature, the unity according to subsistence has been made. Now unity according to subsistence signifies that God the Word, that is one subsistence out of the three subsistences of the deity, was not united to a man already formed, but in the womb of the holy Virgin created for himself from her, in his own subsistence, flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul, which is human nature. Teaching us this unity according to subsistence of God the Word to the flesh, the divine Apostle also says: Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Philippians 2).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"Per hoc enim quod dixit, Qui cum in forma Dei esset, Verbi subsistentiam in natura Dei esse ostendit: per hoc autem quod dixit, Formam servi accepit, naturæ hominis, et non subsisteutiæ sive personac, unitum esse Deum Verbum significavit. Nec enim dixit, quod eum qui in forma servi erat, accepit, ne ante plasmato homini unitum esse Deum Verbum ostenderet, sicut Theodorus et Nestorius impii blasphemaverunt, affectualem dicentes unitatem. Nos autem sequentes divinas Scripturas et sanctos Patres, confitemur quod Deus Verbum caro factus est, quod est secundum subsistentiam sibi unire naturam humanam: ideo et unus est Dominus noster Jesus Christus, habens in semetipso perfectionem divinæ naturæ, et perfectionem naturae humanas. Et est unigenitus quidem Verbum, ut pote ex Deo Patre natus, et primogenitus autem in multis fratribus: idem ipse cum factus est homo (Filius enim Dei, filius hominis factus eat), et manens quod erat, non transmutavit quod factus est. Unde et duas nativitates ejusdem ipsius unigeniti Dei Verbi confitemur: apte sæcula quidem ex Patre incorporaliter nati, in ultimis autem diebus ejusdem ipsius incarnati et nati [humanati Grac.] de sancta gloriosa Dei Genitrice et semper Virgine Maria. Qui enim de Patre splenduit supra intellectum, ex matre ortus est supra rationem [orationem]. Et cum Deus verus esset, factus est vere homo.","english":"For by saying, Who being in the form of God, he showed that the subsistence of the Word is in the nature of God; but by saying, He took the form of a servant, he signified that God the Word was united to the nature of man, and not to a subsistence or person. For he did not say that he took him who was in the form of a servant, lest he show that God the Word was united to a man already formed, as the impious Theodore and Nestorius blasphemed, calling the union a relational one. But we, following the divine Scriptures and the holy Fathers, confess that God the Word became flesh, which is to unite the human nature to himself according to subsistence; therefore also our Lord Jesus Christ is one, having in himself the perfection of the divine nature and the perfection of the human nature. And he is the only-begotten Word, as being born of God the Father, and also the firstborn among many brothers: the same one, when he became man (for the Son of God became son of man), and remaining what he was, did not change what he became. Whence we confess also two births of the same only-begotten God the Word: ineffably, indeed, begotten of the Father without a body, but in the last days the same one incarnate and born [made man] of the holy, glorious Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary. For he who shone forth from the Father beyond understanding was born of the mother beyond reason. And though he was true God, he became truly man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"Ideo proprie et vere Dei Genitricem sanctam gloriosam et semper virginem Mariam confitemar: non quia Deus Verbum initium ex ipsa accepit, sed quod in ultimis diebus unigenitus Deus Verbum, qui ante saecula erat, incarnatus ex ipsa, immutabiliter homo factus est: et cum invisibilis in suis esset, visibilis factus est in nostris: et cum impassibilis Deus esset, non dedignatus est passibilis esse homo; et immortalis, mortis legibus subjacere. Istum, qui in Bethlehem de semine David natus est secundum carnem, et similis factus hominibus, et crucifixus est pro hominibus sub Pontio Pilato, prædicaverunt sancti apostoli ipsum esse Deum, ipsum hominem; ipsum Filium Dei, ipsum filium hominis; ipsum de coelo, ipsum de terra; ipsum impassibileni, ipsum passibilcm. Deus enim Verbum, qui natus est desursum ex Patre ineffabiliter, inenarrabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, sempiterne, ipse in tempore nascitur deorsum de Virgine Maria, ut illi qui deorsum prins nati sunt, desursum secundum nascerentur, id est ei Deo. Ipse igitur matrem tantummodo habet super terram, et nos tantummodo patrem habemus in cælo. Cum enim accepisset mortalem patrem hominum Adam, dedit hominibus suum Patrem immortalem, secundum hoc quod dicitur: Dedit eis potestalem filios Dei fieri (Joan. i).","english":"Therefore we properly and truly confess the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary to be the Mother of God: not because God the Word received a beginning from her, but because in the last days the only-begotten God the Word, who existed before the ages, was incarnate from her and became man immutably; and though he was invisible in his own nature, he became visible in ours; and though he was God impassible, he did not disdain to become a passible man; and though immortal, to be subject to the laws of death. This one, who was born in Bethlehem of the seed of David according to the flesh, and was made like unto men, and was crucified for men under Pontius Pilate, the holy apostles proclaimed to be himself God, himself man; himself Son of God, himself son of man; himself from heaven, himself from earth; himself impassible, himself passible. For God the Word, who was born from above from the Father ineffably, inexpressibly, incomprehensibly, eternally, he himself is born in time from below from the Virgin Mary, so that those who were first born from below might be born from above according to God, that is, to him. He therefore has a mother only on earth, and we have a father only in heaven. For when he had received mortal Adam as father of men, he gave to men his own immortal Father, according to what is said: He gave them power to become sons of God (John 1).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"Unde et mortem secundum carnem gustat Filius Dei, propter carnalem suum patrem, ut filii hominis vitae ejus participes fierent, propter suum secundum spiritum Patrem Deum. Ipse igitur secundum naturam Filius est Dei, nos autem secundum gratiam; et iterum ipse secundum dispensationem et propter nos filius fuit Adam, nos autcm secundum naturam sumus filii Adam. Pater enim est ejus Deus secundum naturam, noster autem secundum gratiam. Et Deus ei fuit secundum dispensationem, eo quod homo factus est; noster autem secundum naturam Dominus est et Deus. Et ideo Deus Verbum, qui est Filius Dei Patris, unicus carnii, factus est caro, ut homines uniti spiritui, fierent unus spiritus. Ipse igitur verus Filius Dei omnes nos indutus est, ut omnes induamur unum Deum. Et est etiam post incarnationem unus de sancta Trinitate, unigenitus Filius Dei Dominus noster Jesus Christus, compositus ex utraque natura. Compositum autem Christum conStemur, sanctorum Patrum doctrinam sequentes.","english":"Hence the Son of God also tasted death according to the flesh, on account of his father according to the flesh, so that the sons of man might become partakers of his life, on account of his Father God according to the spirit. He, therefore, is Son of God by nature, but we by grace; and again, he was son of Adam by dispensation and for our sake, but we are sons of Adam by nature. For God is his Father by nature, but ours by grace. And God was his by dispensation, in that he became man; but the Lord is our God by nature. And therefore the Word of God, who is the only-begotten Son of the Father, became flesh, so that men, united to the spirit, might become one spirit. He, therefore, the true Son of God, has put on all of us, so that we all might put on the one God. And even after the incarnation he is one of the holy Trinity, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, composed of both natures. But we confess Christ to be composed, following the teaching of the holy Fathers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"In mysterio enim Christi unitas secundum compositionem, confusionem et divisionem rejicit, et servat quidem utriusque natune proprietatem; unam autem subsistentiam seu personam Dei Verbi et cum carne ostendit, et est unus idemque perfectus in deitate, et perfectus in humanitate, non tanquam in duabus subsistentiis sive personis, sed in divina natura et humana cognoscendus, ut unus sit in utraque, perfectus Deus et perfectus homo; idem ipse Dominus Jesus Christus, unus de sancta Trinitato congloriticandus Patri et sancto Spiritui. Nec enim quartæ nersonse adjectionem suscepit sancta Trinitas et incarnato uno de sancta Trinitate Deo Verbo. Istam igitur bonam traditionem, quam a sanctis Patribus accepimus, custodimus, in qua vivimus et conversamur, et quam, ab hac vita proficiscentes, oramus nobiscum habere, quæ es! in Patrem et Christum Filium Dei vivi, et sanctum Spirtum confessio.","english":"For in the mystery of Christ, unity according to composition rejects confusion and division, and indeed preserves the property of each nature; but it shows one subsistence or person of God the Word and with the flesh, and there is one and the same perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, not as in two subsistences or persons, but to be known in the divine and human nature, so that there is one in both, perfect God and perfect man; the same Lord Jesus Christ, one of the holy Trinity, to be glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. For the holy Trinity did not receive the addition of a fourth person, even when one of the holy Trinity, God the Word, was incarnate. Therefore we keep this good tradition, which we have received from the holy Fathers, in which we live and move, and which, as we depart from this life, we pray to have with us: the confession which is in the Father and Christ the Son of the living God, and the Holy Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Haec ita confitentes super alias sancti Cyrilli de fide recta doctrinas, et hoc quod dictum est ab ipso, unam naturam Dei verhi incarnatam, suscipientes confitemur quod ex divina natura et humana unus Chrislus effectus est, et non in una natura, prout quidam male intelligentes dictionem, conantur dicere. Unde et ipse Pater, quoties unam naturam dixit Verbi incarnatam, in hoc naturæ nomine pro subsistentia usus est. Et in quibus libris dixit hanc dictionem, in sequentibus sæpius intulit, et quando Filium, et quando Verbum, aut Unigcnitum, quae non naturam, sed subsistentiam seu personam significant. Subsistentia igitur Verbi incarnata non unam naturam, sed unum Christum compositum effecit, eumdem ipsum Deum et hominem. Eos autem qui Christum Deum et hominem confitentur, unam naturam sive substantiam ipsius dicere, impium est. Impossibile enim est Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum secundum unam camdemque naturam seu substantiam et ante sæcula esse, et in tempore, aut impassibilem et passibilem: quod in una subsistentia sive persona ejus recte confitemur. Ex ipsis autem dictis ejusdem sancti Cyrilli ostendemus de memorata dictione manifestam ipsius doctrinam.","english":"Confessing these things, in addition to the other teachings of Saint Cyril concerning right faith, and accepting what was said by him—\"one incarnate nature of God the Word\"—we confess that one Christ was made from the divine nature and the human, and not in one nature, as certain ones, understanding the expression badly, attempt to say. Whence also the same Father, as often as he said \"one incarnate nature of the Word,\" used the name \"nature\" in this place for subsistence. And in the books in which he spoke this expression, in what follows he very often added, sometimes \"Son,\" sometimes \"Word,\" or \"Only-begotten,\" which signify not nature but subsistence or person. The subsistence, therefore, of the Word incarnate made not one nature but one Christ composed, the same both God and man. But for those who confess Christ to be God and man to say that he is one nature or substance is impious. For it is impossible that our Lord Jesus Christ according to one and the same nature or substance be both before the ages and in time, or both impassible and passible; which we rightly confess in one subsistence or person of his. From the very words, moreover, of the same Saint Cyril we shall show his manifest teaching concerning the aforementioned expression.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"In prima enim ad Successam epistola, cum dixisset, unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam, statim intulit: Ergo quantum quidem ad intellectum pertinet, et ad vIdendum tantummodo oculis animæ, quemadmodum incarnatus est Unigenitus, duas naturas unitas esse dicimus, unum autem Filium, et Christum, et Dominum, Dei Patris Verbum incarnatum, et hominem factum. Per ista autem Pater modum incarnationis volens manifestare, et indivisam et inconfusam custodiens unitionem, et numerum naturarum quae convenerunt demonstravit, et unum Christum prædicavit, et non unam naturam deitatis et carnis. Et in secunda ad eumdem Successum epistola similia docens, ita scribit: Nani siquidem unam dicentes Verbi naturam tacuissemus, non inferentes, Incarnatam, sed quasi extra ponentes dispensationem; erat illis forsitan et verisimilis ratio confingentibus interrogare, ubi perfectio in humanitate, vel quomodo subsislit [substitit] humana nostra substantia? Quoniam autem et perfectio in humanitate, et nostræ substantiae demonstratio introducta est, dicendo, Incarnatum; cessent arundineam virgam sibi supponentes. Ejicientem enim dispensationem, et abnegantem incarnationem, oportebat juste accusari, auferentem a Filio perfectam humanitatem.","english":"For in the first letter to Succesus, when he had said \"one incarnate nature of God the Word,\" he immediately added: Therefore, as far as understanding is concerned, and as far as it pertains to seeing with the eyes of the soul alone, in the manner in which the Only-begotten was incarnated, we say that the two natures are of the one united [subject], but one Son, and Christ, and Lord, the Word of God the Father incarnate and made man. Through these things, however, the Father, wishing to make manifest the manner of the incarnation, and preserving the union indivisible and unconfused, both demonstrated the number of the natures that came together and proclaimed one Christ, and not one nature of divinity and flesh. And in the second letter to the same Succesus, teaching similar things, he writes thus: For if indeed, saying \"one nature of the Word,\" we had kept silent, not adding \"incarnate,\" but as it were placing the dispensation outside, perhaps even a plausible account would have been available to those who fabricate [objections], to ask where the perfection in humanity is, or how our human substance subsisted. But since both the perfection in humanity and the demonstration of our substance have been introduced by saying \"incarnate,\" let them cease setting a reed staff under themselves. For it was right that one who rejects the dispensation and denies the incarnation should be accused, as one who takes away from the Son perfect humanity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Sin autem (ut dixi) incarnatum esse dicendo ipsum, manifesta est et indubitabilis confessio, quod factus cst homo; nihil jam prohibet intelligere, quia cum unus sit et solus filius Christus, idem ipse Deus est et homo, sicut in deitate perfectus, ita et in humanitate perfectus. Rectissime autem et nimis prudenter tua perfectio de salutari passione rationem exponit, non ipsum unigenitum Filium Dei, secundum quod intelligitur et est Dens, passum esse in sua natura quæ sunt corporis affirmans, magis autem passum esse terrena natura. Oportet enim necessario utraque servari uni et vero Filio, et non pati secundum deitatem, et dici passum esse eumdem ipsum sceun. dum humanitatem; ipsius enim passa est caro. i Et in tertiodecimo capite scholiorum idem S. Cyrillus similiter rejiciens eos qui duos filios introducunt, et eos qui u nam dicunt naturam deitatis et carnis Christi, ita scribit: Non discernendum unum Dominum Jesum Christum in hominem separatim, et in Deum separatim; sed unum eumdemque Dominum Jesum Christum dicimus, naturarum scientes differentiam, et inconfusas eas sibi invicem conservantes.","english":"But if (as I said) by saying that he himself was incarnate, the confession is manifest and indubitable that he became man, nothing now prevents us from understanding that, since Christ the Son is one and only, the same one is both God and man, perfect in divinity as he is also perfect in humanity. And most rightly and with great prudence your Perfection sets forth the account of the saving passion, affirming that the only-begotten Son of God himself did not suffer in his own nature—according to what is understood and what he is, God—the things that belong to the body, but rather that he suffered in his earthly nature. For it is necessary that both be preserved for the one and true Son: that he not suffer according to divinity, and that the same one be said to have suffered according to humanity; for his flesh suffered. And in the thirteenth chapter of the scholia the same St. Cyril, similarly rejecting those who introduce two sons and those who say there is one nature of the divinity and the flesh of Christ, writes thus: The one Lord Jesus Christ is not to be divided separately into a man and separately into a God; but we say one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, knowing the difference of the natures and preserving them unconfused with respect to one another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"» Si igitur (prout docet nos sanctus Cyrillus) unus est Dominus noster Jesus Christus, perfectus in deitate, et perfectus idem ipse in humanitate, et non est passus divina natura, sed terrena, scit autem et naturarum differentiam, et quod inconfusæ sibi invicem in una subsistentia conservantur: certum est, quod eumdem ipsum in divina natura et in humana dicit Pater cognosci, et utramque naturam in ipso esse, ex quibus et compositus est. Et non aliquis sic insaniat, ut arbitretur eos recte sapere qui dicunt unam esse naturam sive substantiam carnis et deitatis Christi, eamdem et divinam et terrenam, passibilem et impassibilem.\n\nQuoniam autem et alio modo quidam ostendere conantur, unam esse naturam deitatis et humanitatis Christi, exemplum hominis proponentes, et dicentes, quod sicut ex diversis naturis, anima et corpore consistens homo, una natura dicitur, sie et ex duabus naturis deitatis et humanitatis Cbristum dicentes, debemus unam ipsius dieere naturam: illud ad eos dicemus, quod homo quidem iicet ex diversis constet, id est, anima et corpore, tamen ideo una saLona dicitur, quoniam de omnibus subsistentiis sive personis, quæ sub eadem specie referuntur, commaniter praedicatur.","english":"If therefore (as Saint Cyril teaches us) our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in divinity and the same perfect in humanity, and the divine nature did not suffer but the earthly, and He knows both the difference of the natures and that they are preserved unconfused in one subsistence: it is certain that the Father says that the same one is known in the divine nature and in the human, and that both natures are in Him, from which He is also composed. And let no one be so insane as to think that those are right who say that the flesh and the divinity of Christ are one nature or substance, the same both divine and earthly, passible and impassible.\n\nBut since some attempt to show in another way that the divinity and humanity of Christ are one nature, proposing the example of a man and saying that just as a man consisting of different natures, soul and body, is called one nature, so also, saying that Christ is from the two natures of divinity and humanity, we ought to call His nature one: we will say to them that a man, although he consists of different things, that is, soul and body, is nevertheless called one nature for this reason, because it is predicated commonly of all the subsistences or persons that are referred to under the same species.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Licet enim unaquaeque subsistentia sive persona, sicut Petrus et Paulus, proprietatibus a se invicem separentur, sed tamen non natura dividuntur: ambo enim homines; et iterum, nec anima sine corpore, nec corpus sine anima homo est, sed ex eo quod non erat, ad hoc quod est, ex anima et corpore creatus est. Unaquæque autem creatura licet ex diversis constet, sed tamen unam illam habere dicitur naturam, secundum quam a Deo creata est. Christus autem non sic: nec enim unam naturam sive substantiam significat, quae communiter de plurimis subsistentiis sive personis prædicatur, sicut homo. Si enim hoc esset, multi christi invenirentur in [ de ] quibus communitas unius naturæ praedicabitur; quod et dicere impium est. Sed neque ab initio ex deitatc et humanitate sicut homo ex anima et corpore, Christus creatus est, ut hoc sit natura Christi: sed cum Deus esset ante sæcula Verbum, et esset ejusdem naturæ sive substantiae cum Patre, et creator omnium, in ultimis diebus hominis naturam secundum subsistentiam sibi uniens, factus est homo manens Deus.","english":"For although each individual subsistence or person, like Peter and Paul, is separated from one another by properties, yet they are not divided in nature: for both are men. And again, neither is the soul without the body, nor the body without the soul, a man; but from that which was not, to that which is, he was created out of soul and body. But each creature, although it consists of diverse things, is nevertheless said to have that one nature according to which it was created by God. But Christ is not so: for neither does He signify one nature or substance, which is predicated in common of many subsistences or persons, as man is. For if this were so, many christs would be found, of whom the community of one nature would be predicated; which even to say is impious. But neither was Christ created from the beginning out of deity and humanity, as man is out of soul and body, so that this should be the nature of Christ; but when the Word was God before the ages, and was of the same nature or substance with the Father, and the creator of all things, in the last days, uniting to Himself in subsistence the nature of man, He became man, remaining God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"Est igitur Christus una subsistentia, sive persona, et habet in semetipso perfectionem divinap et increabilis naturæ, et perfectionem humanæ et creabilis naturæ. Quomodo igitur, in quo dux naturæ cognoscuntur, increabilis, et creabilis, in eo unam naturam sive substantiam dici possibile est? Licet enim una subsistentia sive persona Christus sit, sed consubstantialis Deo Patri, et consubstantialis nobis idem ipse est, non tamen secundum unam eamdemque naturam, seu substantiam. Sin autem una natura sive substantia esset Christus, aut sine carne est, et soli Deo Patri [et Spiritui Græc.] consubstantialis, quoniam una deitatis substantia sive natura est: aut purus homo existens, nobis est solum consubstantialis, quoniam una natura humanitatis est: aut immutata utraque natura alteram effecit naturam, præter eas quæ convenerunt, et secundum illos neque Deus mansit, neque homo factus est Christus, et ideo neque Patri, neque nobis idem ipse consubstantialis est. Sic autem sapere omni plenum est impietate. Et ista dicimus, non ignorantes quod et quidam sanctorum Patrum hominis exemplo in mysterio Christi usi sunt 1: sed illi qoidemut ostenderent, quod sicut homo ex anima et corpore unus efficitur, et non duo homines, sic et Christus ex deitate et humanitate compositus, unus est, non in duos christos vel in duos filios dividendus.","english":"Christ, therefore, is one subsistence or person, and has in himself the perfection of the divine and uncreated nature, and the perfection of the human and created nature. How, then, can it be possible to say that there is one nature or substance in him, in whom two natures are recognized, the uncreated and the created? For although Christ is one subsistence or person, yet the same one is consubstantial with God the Father and consubstantial with us, not however according to one and the same nature or substance. But if Christ were one nature or substance, then either he is without flesh and consubstantial with God the Father alone [and the Spirit], since the substance or nature of the Godhead is one; or, being a mere man, he is consubstantial with us alone, since the nature of humanity is one; or, with both natures unchanged, the one produced the other nature, beyond those which came together, and according to them Christ neither remained God nor became man, and therefore he is not consubstantial either with the Father or with us. But to hold such a view is full of all impiety. And we say these things, not unaware that certain of the holy Fathers used the example of a man in the mystery of Christ: but they did so to show that just as a man is made one from soul and body, and not two men, so also Christ, composed of deity and humanity, is one, not to be divided into two Christs or two Sons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"Isti autem hominis exemplo utuntur, ut unam naturam sive substantiam deitatis et humanitatis Christi introducant: quod demonstravimus alienum esse pietatis. Sed cum per hæc convincuntur, quod præter rectam Patrum doctrinam sibi confingunt unam naturam seu substantiam deitatis et carnis, ad alia transeunt, dicentes non oportere numerum naturarum in Christo dicere, ut pote numero divisionem introducente. Sciant igitur, quod numerus quando in diversis personis, sive subsistentiis dicitur, rerum ipsarum per partes habet divisionem, sicut in duobus vel etiam pluribus hominibus: quando autem in rebus unitis, tunc verbo solo [ratione sola] et intellectu, non tamen ipsarum rerum habet divisionem, sicut in una subsistentia hominis ex anima et corpore constituta. Duæ enim et hic naturae intelliguntur, altera animæ, et altera corporis: et tamen non propter hoc in duos homines dividitur, sed unum scimus hominem esse, et unam subsistentiam ejus. Et in mysterio igitur Christi facta unitionc, licet diversa intelligantur quæ unita sunt, sed non ipsa re et per partes a se invicem separantur ea, ex quibus dominus noster Jesus Christus compositus est, differentiam tamen considerantes et hanc significare volentes, numerum assuminus, et duas in Christo naturas esse dicimus: nec ideo unus Christus in duos christos, vel in duos filios dividitur.","english":"But they use the example of this man to introduce one nature or substance of the divinity and humanity of Christ, which we have shown to be foreign to piety. But when they are convicted by these arguments—that beyond the right doctrine of the Fathers they fashion for themselves one nature or substance of divinity and flesh—they pass on to other points, saying that one ought not to speak of a number of natures in Christ, on the ground that number introduces division. Let them know, therefore, that when number is spoken of in diverse persons or subsistences, it involves a division of the things themselves into parts, as in two or even more men; but when it is spoken of in things that are united, then it has division only in word and understanding, yet not in the things themselves, as in the one subsistence of a man constituted of soul and body. For here too two natures are understood, one of the soul and another of the body; and yet on this account he is not divided into two men, but we know that he is one man and that his subsistence is one. And so in the mystery of Christ, once the union has been made, although the things that are united are understood as diverse, yet those things of which our Lord Jesus Christ is composed are not separated from one another in reality and into parts. But considering the difference and wishing to signify it, we adopt number and say that there are two natures in Christ; nor for this reason is the one Christ divided into two Christs or into two Sons.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"Et testimonium praestat nostris dictis sanctus Gregorius Theologus, scribens in primo libro ad Cledonium sic: « Si quis introdudt duos fllios, unum quidem ex Deo et Patre, secundum autem es matre, sed non unum eumdemque, ex adoptione eadat, quae promissa est credentibus recte. Natura enim duae, Deus homo, quomodo et anima et corpus; non autem duo filii, uec dii duo. Nec enim hi duo homines, licet Paulus sic appellaverit (1 Cor. iv) quod est intus hominis, et quod est extrinsecus: et ut compendiose dicamus, aliud quidem et aliud ea ex quibus salvator est, cum non idem sit invisibile et visibile, et boc quod sine tempore est, et hoc quod sub tempore: non autem alius et alius: absit.\n\nEcce per haec evidenter docet sanctus Gregorius, quod in mysterio Christi ille quidem qui in personis numerum dicit, ut impius condemnatur: ille autem qui in naturis, ex quibus unus Christus compositus est, numerum accipit, recte confitetur, ut pote differentiam quidem naturarum quæ convenerunt, per hoc significans: divisionem autem, quæ per partem est, nullo modo faciens. Sicut enim altera natura est animae, et altera corporis, et tamen unus secundum compositionem homo efficitur, et non duo homines; sic et in Christo licet duae intelligantur naturæ, altera quidem deitatis, altera vero humanitatis, sed non propter hoc duo christi, aut duo filii introducuntur.","english":"And Saint Gregory the Theologian provides testimony for our statements, writing in the first book to Cledonius thus: «If anyone introduces two sons—one indeed from God and the Father, but the other from the mother, and not one and the same—let him depart from the adoption which is promised to those who believe rightly. For the natures are two, God and man, just as soul and body are; but there are not two sons, nor two gods. For neither are these two men, although Paul so called (1 Cor 4) that which is within man and that which is outside; and to speak briefly, one thing indeed and another are those from which the Savior is, since the invisible and the visible are not the same, and that which is without time and that which is under time; but not another and another: far be it.\n\nBehold, through these words Saint Gregory clearly teaches that in the mystery of Christ, he who speaks of number in persons is condemned as impious; but he who accepts number in the natures, from which the one Christ is composed, rightly confesses, as one who signifies indeed the difference of the natures that came together, but in no way makes the division that is by part. For just as one nature is of the soul and another of the body, and yet one man is made according to composition, and not two men; so also in Christ, although two natures are understood—one indeed of divinity, but the other of humanity—yet not on this account are two Christs or two sons introduced.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Ergo qui numerum naturarum quæ in Christo sunt, secundum prædictum modum dicere recusant, manifesti sunt differentiam naturarum abnegantes, et confusionem introducentes dispensationi. Si vero differentiam confitentur, necesse est omnimodo ad eam significandam, et numerum dicere naturarum quae sine confusione in unam subsistentiam convenerunt. Ubi enim differentia servatur, ibi omni modo et numerus sequitur. Ad confirmanda autem ea quæ diximus, sanctorum patrum testimonio utentes, ostendemus eos dicere, quod in [mysterio Christi Græc.] uno Domino nostro Jesu Christo rationes qnidem dividuntur secundum differentiam naturarmn deitatis et humanilatis ex quibus et compositus est, et numerum in hoc assumunt, non tamen ipsa re et per partes naturarum faciunt divisionem in duas subsistentias sive personas.\n\nDicit enim sanctus Cyrillus in Levitici interpretatione (Levit. xiv), sic: Totum in his iterum circumspice aperte Salvatoris nostri mysterium, et emundationem quæ per sanctum baptisma fit. Duas enim aviculas sumi jubet vivas et mundas, ut intelligas per volalilia coelestem hominem simul et Deum, in duas naturas, quantum pertinet ad rationem unicuique convenientem, dividendum. Deus enim Verbum, quæ ex Deo Palre est, splenduit in carne quia ex muliere est, verumtamen non partiendum; unus enim et utrisque Christus.","english":"Therefore those who refuse to state the number of the natures that are in Christ, according to the manner already described, are manifestly denying the difference of the natures and introducing confusion into the dispensation. But if they confess the difference, it is altogether necessary, in order to signify it, to state also the number of the natures which have come together without confusion into one subsistence. For where the difference is preserved, there the number also follows in every way. And to confirm what we have said, using the testimony of the holy fathers, we shall show that they say that in the one Lord our Jesus Christ the principles are indeed divided according to the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, from which he is also composed, and they assume the number in this, yet they do not in reality and by parts of the natures make a division into two subsistences or persons.\n\nFor Saint Cyril says in his interpretation of Leviticus (Lev. xiv) thus: «Look again in these things wholly at the manifest mystery of our Savior, and the cleansing that is done through holy baptism. For he commands two birds to be taken, living and clean, so that you may understand that the heavenly man, who is at once both God and man, is to be divided into two natures, as far as the principle proper to each is concerned. For God the Word, who is from God the Father, shone forth in the flesh because he is from a woman, yet he is not to be divided; for Christ is one, even of both.»","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"Et iterum idem sanctus Cyrillus in secunda ad Successum epistola ita dicit: « Sed ignoraverunt quod quae per solum intellectum dividi solent, non hæc necessario etiam in alteritatem, quæ est per partes, omnimodo et specialiter a se invicem separabuntur. Sed et sanctus Basilius in quarto libro contra Eunonium, interpretans hoc quod est: Dominus creavit me, et ante omnes colles genuit me (Prov. ix): ita scribit: « Intelligendum hoc quidem quod dicit, creavit, de eo qui formam servi accepit. In his autem omnibus non duo dicimus, Deum separatim, et hominem separatim, unus enim erat: sed secundum intellectum, utriusque naturam existimantes. Sed et sanctus Gregorius Theologus in libro secundo de Filio, docens nos quomodo in Domino nostro Jesu Christo oportet naturas quæ in eo sunt, secundum intellectum discernere, ita scribit: « Cum naturæ intellectu distant, simul dividuntur etiam nomina, Paulum dicentem audi: Ut Deus Domini nostri Jeau Christi, Pater gloriæ (Ephes. I): Christi quidem Deus, gloriae autem Pater. Nam etsi utrumque unum est, tamen non natura, sed conventu. Et sanctus autem Gregorius Nyssenus [Episcopus Nyssæ] in quarto libro contra Eunomium, eadem nos docens, ita scribit: Et ne aliquis incorruptibili naturæ crueis passionem applicaret, per alia manifestius talem emendat errorem, mediatorem ipsum Dei et hominum (1 Tim.","english":"And again the same Saint Cyril says in the second letter to Successus: \"But they did not know that things which are customarily divided by the intellect alone are not for that reason necessarily and in every way separated from one another into an otherness that is by parts and specifically. But also Saint Basil in the fourth book against Eunomius, interpreting this passage, 'The Lord created me, and before all the hills he begot me' (Prov. 9), writes thus: \"What he says, 'created,' must be understood of him who took the form of a servant. But in all these things we do not speak of two, God separately and man separately, for he was one; but according to the intellect, reckoning the nature of each. But also Saint Gregory the Theologian in the second book on the Son, teaching us how in our Lord Jesus Christ the natures that are in him ought to be discerned according to the intellect, writes thus: \"When natures are distinct in the intellect, the names are divided along with them. Hear Paul saying: 'The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory' (Eph. 1): of Christ indeed God, but of glory Father. For although both are one, yet not by nature, but by conjunction. And Saint Gregory of Nyssa [Bishop of Nyssa] also in the fourth book against Eunomius, teaching us the same things, writes thus: And lest anyone should apply the passion of the cross to the incorruptible nature, through other things he more manifestly corrects such an error, calling him the mediator of God and men (1 Tim.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"II), et hominem et Deum ipsum nominans: ut cum duo de uno dicantur, congruum intelligatur circa utrumque, circa deitatem quidem impassibilitas. circa humanitatem autem dispensatio passionis. Intellectu igitur dividente hoc quod per misericordiam quidem unitum est, ratione autem discernitur, cum hoc quidem, quod superpositum est et supereminens omnem sensum, prædicat, altioribus utitur nominibus, super omnia Deum, et magnum Deum, et virtutem Dei, et sapientiam (Rom. x; Tit. II; I Cer. I), et talia vocans: cum autem passionum experimentum necessario propter nostram infirmitatem acceptum verbis significat, ex nostro nominans utrumque hominem ipsum appellat, non communicans per vocem ad cæteram naturam eum qui significatur, sed ut circa utrumque pietas conservetur.\n\nHis ita demonstratis per sanctorum Patrum doctrinam, cessent qui numerum naturarum quæ in Christo sunt, occasionem sui erroris faciunt, et earum differentiam [ob id differentiam negando, Græc.] numeri recusatione negando, confusionem introducere conantur. Quomodo enim non est necessarius numerus, quo, ad significandam differentiam naturarum quae in unam subsistentiam unitæ sunt, et non ad divisionem per partes earum, usi sunt Patres?","english":"II), naming him both man and God: so that when two things are said of one, what is fitting may be understood concerning each—concerning the divinity, impassibility; concerning the humanity, the dispensation of the passion. Therefore, when the intellect divides that which has been united through mercy but is distinguished by reason, when it proclaims that which is set above and transcends every sense, it uses loftier names—God over all, and great God, and the power of God, and the wisdom (Rom 9; Tit 2; 1 Cor 1)—calling him such things; but when it signifies in words the experience of sufferings necessarily undergone because of our weakness, naming from our own condition it calls him both man, not attributing by that word to the other nature him who is signified, but so that piety may be preserved concerning both.\n\nThese things having been demonstrated through the teaching of the holy Fathers, let those cease who make the number of the natures that are in Christ an occasion of their own error, and who, denying the difference of these [for that reason denying the difference, in Greek] by a refusal of number, attempt to introduce confusion. For how is the number not necessary, which the Fathers used to signify the difference of the natures united into one subsistence, and not for the division of them into parts?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Demonstratio igitur undique, quod impium est dicere unam naturam sive substantiam deitatis et carnis Christi, et illud dicimus, quia nec secundum quod unam subsistentiam dicimus deitatis et humanitatis Christi, sic possibile est et unam naturam Christi dicere: quoniam non idem est natura et subsistentia. Omnes enim sancti Patres consonanter nos docent aliud esse naturam sive substantiam et formam, et aliud subsistentiam sive personam; et naturam quidem vel substantiam et formam, et hoc quod est commune, significare; subsistentiam autem sive personam, hoc quod est speciale. Sin vero dixerint quidam, quod sicut un? subsistentia composita dicitur Christi, sic oportet et unam naturam compositam dicere: ostendemus et hoc alienum esse a pietate. Unam enim naturam sive substantiam deitatis dicentes, tres ipsius confitemur [glorificamus, Græc.] subsistentias, in unaquaque subsistentia-eamdem naturam sive substantiam cognoscentes. Et recte ex tribus subsistentiis unam subsistentiam Verbi ad carnem compositam esse dicimus. Nemo enim unquam ausus est in. ca tholica Ecclesia dicere, qued sicut tres subsistentiæ, sic et tres naturæ sunt sanctae Trinitalis: ut possibile sit dicere, unam naturam ex tribus naturis compositam esse ad carnem. Tres cnim naturas in sancta Trinitate solus Arius ausus dicere, tanquam blasphemus condemnatuS est.","english":"Therefore it is demonstrated from every angle that it is impious to speak of one nature or substance of the divinity and the flesh of Christ, and we say this also, because just as we say that there is one subsistentia of the divinity and humanity of Christ, it is not likewise possible to speak of one nature of Christ: since nature and subsistentia are not the same thing. For all the holy Fathers unanimously teach us that nature or substance and form are one thing, and subsistentia or person is another; and that nature or substance and form signify that which is common, while subsistentia or person signifies that which is particular. But if certain people have said that just as one composite subsistentia of Christ is spoken of, so too one composite nature ought to be spoken of, we shall show that this also is foreign to piety. For when we speak of one nature or substance of the divinity, we confess three subsistentiae of it, recognizing the same nature or substance in each subsistentia. And rightly do we say that from three subsistentiae one subsistentia of the Word has been composed with the flesh. For no one in the catholic Church has ever dared to say that just as there are three subsistentiae, so there are also three natures of the holy Trinity: so that it might be possible to say that one nature has been composed from three natures with the flesh. For Arius alone dared to speak of three natures in the holy Trinity, and as a blasphemer he has been condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"Idee igitur secundum rectam rationem, duarum naturarum dicimus unitionem, et unam subsistentiam: quoniam Dei Filius, cum esset secundum subsistentiam aher præter Patrem, eamdem autcm naturam habens Patris, in sua subsistentia plasmavit sibi carnem animatam anima rationali et intellectuali: quod significat, humanæ naturæ unitum esse Deum Verbum, et non subsistentiae seu personæ cujusdam. Est igitur Deus Verbum et incarnatus, una subsistentia in utraque natura cognoscendus: in divina, in qua erat, prout dictum est, Qai cum in forma Dei esset (Philip. II); et in humana secundum hoc quod est in similitudinem hominum factus (Ibidem). Et ideo [pie, Græc.] rectius dicat aliquis unam subsistentiam Dei Verbi compositam, quam unam naturam compositam: quoniam cum per se absolute natura dicitur, non adjecta ei speciali cujusdam persona, infinitum, et non subsistens aliquid significat: infinitum autem ad nihil potest componi. Sin autem aliquis et post tales rationes ad contentionem solam respiciens, opponere conatur, dicens quod secundum redditam naturae rationem oportet et humanam naturam Christi suam subsistentiam seu personam propriam habere: manifestus est talis, quod ante subsistenti homini unitum esse dicit Deum Verbum, et affectualem factam esse unitatem. Dux enim subsistentiae seu personae secundum subsistentiam uniri non possunt.","english":"Therefore, according to right reason, we speak of a union of two natures and one subsistentia: because the Son of God, although he was according to subsistentia other than the Father, yet having the same nature as the Father, formed for himself in his own subsistentia flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul: which signifies that God the Word was united to human nature, and not to some subsistentia or person. Therefore God the Word is both incarnate, to be known as one subsistentia in both natures: in the divine, in which he was, as it is said, Who being in the form of God (Phil. 2); and in the human, according to this, that he was made in the likeness of men (Ibid.). And therefore [piously, as the Greek has it] one might more correctly say that the one subsistentia of God the Word is composite, than that one nature is composite: since when nature is spoken of absolutely by itself, without a special [subsistentia] of some person being added to it, it signifies something infinite and not subsisting: but the infinite cannot be composed with anything. But if anyone, even after such reasonings, looking only to contention, attempts to object, saying that according to the stated account of nature, the human nature of Christ must also have its own proper subsistentia or person: such a one is manifestly saying that God the Word was united to a man already subsisting, and that the union was affective. For two subsistentiae or persons cannot be united according to subsistentia.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Qui igitur hæc dicit, Dei potentiam verbis humanæ sapientiae evacuare festinans, ignorat magnum pietatis mysterium, quod corde quidem creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Neque enim humana Christi natura per se absolute unquam dicitur, sed nec suam subsistentiam seu personam habuit: sed in subsisteptia Dei Verbi, natura humana initium [initium existentiae accepit, Græc.] ut esset, habuit: unde ipsum Deum Verbum immutabiliter hominem factum esse contitcmur, et non in hominem quemdam venisse; et ejusdem Dei Verbi incarnati esse nativitatem ex virgine, et prepter hoc Dei Genitricem sanctam gloriosam semper virginem Mariam esse. Ideo et ante incarnationem Dei Verbi, et post ejus incarnationem, tres subsistentias dicimus Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. Non enim sancta Trinitas quartæsubsistentiæ vel personae adjectionem suscepit. Ex bis igitur omnibus convincuntur qui dicunt. ante unitioncm duas naturas esse, quod ante plasmatum [subsistentem J dicunt hominem, et sic unitum esse Deo Verbo, secundum insaniam Theodori et Nestorii impiorum. Qui autem dicunt, quod non oportet post unitatem duas naturas in Christo, sed unam dicere, confusionem et phantasiam inlroducunt secundum Apollinarium et Eutychen impios. Sed isti quidem hæc.","english":"Whoever therefore says these things, hastening to empty the power of God by the words of human wisdom, is ignorant of the great mystery of godliness, which is indeed believed with the heart unto righteousness, but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation. For the human nature of Christ is never spoken of by itself absolutely, nor did it have its own subsistentia or person; but in the subsistentia of God the Word, the human nature received its beginning, so that it might exist. Hence we confess that God the Word himself became man immutably, and did not come into a certain man; and that the nativity of the same incarnate God the Word is from the virgin, and that for this reason Mary is the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mother of God. Therefore both before the incarnation of God the Word and after his incarnation, we speak of three subsistentiae of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the holy Trinity did not receive the addition of a fourth subsistentia or person. From all these things, therefore, those who say that before the union there are two natures are refuted, because they say that the man existed before he was formed, and was thus united to God the Word, according to the madness of the impious Theodore and Nestorius. But those who say that after the union there ought not to be two natures in Christ, but one, introduce confusion and phantasy according to the impious Apollinarius and Eutyches. But these men indeed say these things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Sancti vera Pa tres, post Dei Verbi incarnationem considerantes ea ex quibus Christus est, et quod inconfusæ manserunt naturae, rectissime duas naturas, divinam et burna nam, in Christo esse dixerunt. Nec enim ante incarnationem duæ naturæ erant Domini, nec post incarnationem duæ naturae una factæ sunt, licet in una subsistentia cognoscantur.\n\nHæc autem et ex divinis Scripturis et Patrum doctrina edocti, ad refutandos eos qui confundunt ei dividunt divinæ dispensationis mysterium, merito scripsimus, et non eo quod declaramus ea ex quibus est, et in quibus cognoscitur Christus, confusionem vel divisionem divinae dispensationi facimus. ttaque glorificationem et unitionis rationem profereates, unum Christom et Filium et Dominum, Verbum Dei incarnatum et hominem factum confitemw et adoramus cum Patre et Spiritu sancto. Haec ita cum universali Dei Ecclesia confitentes 1, scire volumus omnes Christianos, quod sicut unam Deum et Dominum habemus, ita et unam fidem. Una enim definiUo fidei est, confiteri et recte glorificare Patrem, et Christum Filium Dei, et Spiritum sanctum. Istam confessionem conservamus-, in qua et baptizati sumus donatam quidem a magno Deo et Salvatore nestro Jesu Christo sanctis suis discipulis et apostolis, ab eis autem prædicatam in toto mundo.","english":"The holy Fathers, considering after the incarnation of the Word of God those things of which Christ consists, and that the natures remained without confusion, most rightly said that there are two natures in Christ, divine and human. For neither before the incarnation were there two natures of the Lord, nor after the incarnation have the two natures become one, although they are known in one subsistence.\n\nBut taught these things both from the divine Scriptures and from the doctrine of the Fathers, we have rightly written to refute those who confuse or divide the mystery of the divine dispensation, and not in that we declare those things of which Christ consists and in which he is known do we make confusion or division of the divine dispensation. Therefore, setting forth the glorification and the reason of the union, we confess and adore one Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God incarnate and made man, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Confessing these things thus with the universal Church of God, we wish all Christians to know that just as we have one God and Lord, so also we have one faith. For there is one definition of faith: to confess and rightly glorify the Father, and Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. We preserve this confession, in which we were also baptized, given indeed by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to his holy disciples and apostles, and preached by them throughout the whole world.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"Trecenti autem decem et octo sancti Patres collecti in Nicaea adversus Arium, illo cum sua impietate condemnato, eamdem confessionem, id est, sanctum mathema et symbolum fidei tradiderunt sanctæ Dei Ecclesiae; et post illos, centum quinquaginta sancti Patres Constantinopoli collecti adversus Macedonium sancto Spiritui repugnantem, et Magnum Apollinaristam, illis condemnatis cum sua perfidia, secuti per omnia idem sanctum symbolum traditum a trecentis decem et octo sanctis Patribus, explanaverunt quæ sunt de deitate sancti Spiritus (Act. 5). Insuper autem et qui in Epheso prius coilecti sunt sancti Patres adversus Nestorium impium, et qui in Chalcedone convenerunt sancti Patres adversus Eutychem impium, secuti per omnia prædictum sanctum symbolum sive mathema fidei, condemnaverunt prædictos hæreticos una cum corum impietate, et hos qui similia illis sapuerunt, vel sapiont. Et super hæc anathematizaverunt eos qui aliam definitionem fidei, sive symbolum, sive mathema tradunt accedentibus ad sanctum baptisma, vel ex quacunque hæresi conversis, praeter traditum (sicut dictum esL) a trecenlis decem et octo sanctis Patribus, et explanatum a centum quinquaginta sanctis Patribus. His ita se habentibus, perspeximus et capitula supponere, quibus tam rectæ iidei compendiosa confessio, quam haereticorum condemnatio continetur.","english":"But the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea against Arius, after he had been condemned together with his impiety, handed down to the holy Church of God the same confession, that is, the holy mathema and symbol of faith; and after them, the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople against Macedonius, who fought against the Holy Spirit, and against Apollinaris the Great, after these had been condemned together with their perfidy, following in all things the same holy symbol handed down by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, set forth clearly the things concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the holy Fathers who were first assembled at Ephesus against the impious Nestorius, and the holy Fathers who convened at Chalcedon against the impious Eutyches, following in all things the aforesaid holy symbol or mathema of faith, condemned the aforesaid heretics together with their impiety, and those who have held or do hold the same opinions as they. And in addition to these things they anathematized those who hand down another definition of faith, whether a symbol or a mathema, to those approaching holy baptism, or to those converted from any heresy whatsoever, besides that handed down (as has been said) by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers and set forth clearly by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers. Such being the state of these matters, we have seen fit also to append the chapters in which is contained both a compendious confession of the right faith and the condemnation of the heretics.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"I. Si quis non coafitetur Patrem, et Filium. et Spiritum sanctum, et Trinitatem consubstantialem, unam deitatem, sea naturam, etsubstantiam, et unam virtutem et potestatem in tribus subsistentiis seu personis adoraadam, talis anathema sit.\n\nII. Si quis non confitetur eum, qui ante saecula tt sine tempore ex Patre natus est, Deum Verbum in ultimis diebus descendisse de coelis, et incarnatum esse de sancta gloriosa Dei Genitrice et semper virgine Maria, et hominem factum, natum esse ex ipsa, propter hoc ejusdem Dei Verbi duas esse nativitates, [Suppl. aeternam scilicet et] eam quae est in ultimis diebus secundum carnem, talis anathema sit.\n\nIII. Si quis dicit alium esse Deum Verbum qui miracula operatus est, et alium Christum qui passus est, aut dicit Deum Verbum cum Christo esse nascente ex muliere, vel in ipso esse tanquam alterum in altero, sed non unum eumdemque Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Deum Verbum incarnatum et hominem factum, et ejusdem ipsius miracula et passiones; quas carne sponte sustinuit, talis anathema sit.","english":"I. If anyone does not confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead, one nature, and one substance, and one power and authority to be adored in three subsistences or persons, let such a one be anathema.\n\nII. If anyone does not confess that he who before the ages and without time was begotten of the Father, God the Word, in the last days descended from the heavens, and was incarnate of the holy, glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and became man, and was born of her, and that on this account the same God the Word has two nativities—namely, the eternal one, and that which is in the last days according to the flesh—let such a one be anathema.\n\nIII. If anyone says that God the Word who worked miracles is one and the Christ who suffered is another, or says that God the Word was with Christ when he was born of a woman, or was in him as one in another, but not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate and made man, and that the miracles and the sufferings are of the same one, which he voluntarily endured in the flesh, let such a one be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"IV. Si quis dicit, secundum gratiam, vel secandum operationem, vel secundum dignitatem, vel secundum æqualitatem honoris, vel secundum auctoritatem, vel relationem, vel affectum, vel virtutem, unitionem Dei Verbi ad hominem factam esse, vel secundum homonymiam, per quam Nestoriani et Deum Verbum vocantes Christum, et hominem separaiim Christum nominantes, solo vocabulo unum Christum dicunt: aut si quis per bonam voluntatem dicit unitionem factam esse, sicut Theodorus hæreticus ipsis verbis dicit, quasi placuit Deo Verbo homo, eo quod bene visum est ei de ipso, sed non secundum subsistentiam Dei Verbi ad carnem animatam anima rationali et intelleetuali unitionem confitetur, et ideo unam ejus subsistentiam compesitam esse, talis anathema sit.\n\nV. Si quis per relationem, aut abusive, Dei genitricem dicit sanctam gloriosam semper virginem Maria III, aut hominis genitricem, aut Christotocon, tanquam Christo Deo non existente, sed non proprie et vere Dei genitricem ipsam coafitetur, eo quod ipse qui ante sæcula ex Patre natus est Deus Verbum, in ultimis diebus ex ipsa incarnatus et natus est, talis anathema sit.","english":"IV. If anyone says that the union of God the Word with the man was made according to grace, or according to operation, or according to dignity, or according to equality of honor, or according to authority, or relation, or affection, or power, or according to homonymy, by which the Nestorians, calling Christ both God the Word and separately naming the man Christ, say that Christ is one by the word alone: or if anyone says that the union was made through good will, as the heretic Theodore says in these very words, as if the man pleased God the Word because it seemed good to him concerning him, but does not confess the union of God the Word with the flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul according to subsistence, and that therefore his one subsistence is composed, let such a one be anathema.\n\nV. If anyone says that the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God by relation or abusively, or the mother of a man, or Christotokos, as though Christ were not God, but does not properly and truly confess her to be the mother of God, because he who was born of the Father before the ages, God the Word, in the last days was incarnate and born of her, let such a one be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"VI. Si quis nos confitetur Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum qui carne crucifixus est, Deum esse verum, et Dominum gloriae, et unum de sancta Trinitate, talis anathema sit.\n\nVII. Si quis iu duabus naturis dicens non tanquam in deitate et humanitate unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Deum Verbum incarnatum confitetur, nec ad significandam differentiam naturarum, ex quibus compositus est, sed pro divisione per partem, talem excipit vocem in mysterio Christi, quasi separatim unaquaque natura suam habeute subsistentiam, sicut Theodorus et Nestorius blasphemaverunt, talis anathema sit.\n\nVIII. Si quis in uno Domino Jesu Christo, hoc est Deo Verbo incarnato, numerum confitens naturarum, non intellectu differentiam earum, ex quibus et compositus est, excipit, ut pote non interemptam propter unitatem, sed pro divisione per partem numero utitur, talis anathema sit.","english":"VI. If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified in the flesh, is true God, and the Lord of glory, and one of the holy Trinity, let such a one be anathema.\n\nVII. If anyone, saying that there are two natures, does not confess one Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word incarnate, as in deity and humanity, nor for the purpose of signifying the difference of the natures from which he is composed, but for division into parts, and so accepts this expression in the mystery of Christ as though each nature separately had its own subsistence, as Theodore and Nestorius blasphemed, let such a one be anathema.\n\nVIII. If anyone, confessing the number of natures in the one Lord Jesus Christ, that is, God the Word incarnate, does not accept the difference of them in understanding, from which he is also composed, as though it were not abolished because of the unity, but uses the number for division into parts, let such a one be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"IX. Si quis dicens unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam, non sic hoc intelligit, quod ex divina natura et humana unus Christus effectus est, consubstantialis Patri secundum deitatem, et consubstantialis nobis idem ipse secundum humanitatem, sed quod deitatis et carnis Christi una natura sive substantia effecta est secundum Apollinarii et Eutychetis perfidiam, talis anathema sit.\n\nX. Æqualiter enim et eos qui per partem incidunt vel dividunt, et eos qui confundunt divinæ dispensationis mysterium Christi, rejicit et condemnat universa lis Dei Ecclesia.\n\nSi quis non anathematizat Arium, Eunomium, Macedonium, Apollinarium, Nestorium, Eutychem, et eos qui similia ei sapuerunt vel sapiunt, talis anathema sit.\n\nXI. Si quis defendit Theodorum Mopsuestenum, qui dixit alium esse Deum Verbum, et alium Christum a passionibus animae et desideriis carnis molestias patientem, et ex profectu operum melioratum, et baptizatum in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, et per baptisma gratiam sancti Spiritus accepisse, et affiliationem meruisse, et ad similitudinem imperialis imaginis in personam Dei Verbi adorari [adoratum], et post resurrectionem immutabilem cogitationibus, et impeccabilem omnino factum fuisse; et iterum dixit talem factam esse unitionem Dci Verbi ad Christum, qualem dixit Apostolus de viro et muliere: Erunt duo in carne una (Eph.","english":"IX. If anyone, saying that there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, does not understand this as meaning that from the divine nature and the human nature one Christ was made, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and the same one consubstantial with us according to humanity, but [understands it as meaning] that one nature or substance of the divinity and the flesh of Christ was made, according to the perfidy of Apollinarius and Eutyches, let such a one be anathema.\n\nX. For equally both those who cut and divide by part, and those who confound the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, the whole Church of God rejects and condemns.\n\nIf anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and those who have thought or do think similar things to him, let such a one be anathema.\n\nXI. If anyone defends Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one and Christ another, who suffered distresses from the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and was made better by the progress of works, and was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and through baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited adoption, and is adored in the person of God the Word after the likeness of an imperial image, and after the resurrection became immutable in his thoughts and altogether impeccable; and again said that the union of God the Word to Christ was such as the Apostle spoke of concerning a man and a woman: They shall be two in one flesh (Eph.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"V): ei super alias Suas iunumerabiles blasphemias ausus est dicere, quod post resurrectionem cum insufflasset Dominus discipulis suis, et dixisset: Accipite Spiri tum sanctum (Joan. xx): non dedit eis Spiritum sanctum, sed figuratim tantummodo insufflavit: sed et lHic autem etiam Gr.] confessionem, quam fecit Thomas cum palpasset manus et latus Domini post resurrectionem, dicens, Dominus meus et Deus meus (Ibidem), inquit non esse diclam a Thoma de Christo (nec enim dixit Theodorus Deum esse Christum), sed ad miraculum resurrectionis stupefactum Thomam glorificasse Deum, qui Christum resuscitavit: et quod pejus est, etiam in interpretatione quain in Actus apostolorum scripsit Theodorus, similem fecit Christum Platoni, et Manichæo, et Epicuro, et Marcioni, dicens quod sicut illorum unusquisque ex dogmate quod invenit, suos discipulos fecit vocari Platonicos, et Manichæos, et Epicureos, et Marcionistas, simili modo et cum Christus dogma invonisset, ex ipso Christianos vocari. Si quis igitur defendit eumdem Theodorum, qui talia blasphemavit, et non anathematizat eum, et ejns conscripta, et eos qui similia illi sapuerunt, vel sapiunt, talis anathema sit.","english":"He dared to say, among his other countless blasphemies, that after the resurrection, when the Lord breathed on his disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20), he did not give them the Holy Spirit but only breathed on them figuratively. Moreover, he also said that the confession which Thomas made after the resurrection when he touched the hands and side of the Lord, saying, “My Lord and my God” (ibid.), was not spoken by Thomas about Christ (for Theodore did not say that Christ is God), but that Thomas, astonished at the miracle of the resurrection, glorified God who raised Christ. And what is worse, even in the interpretation which Theodore wrote on the Acts of the Apostles, he made Christ similar to Plato, and to Mani, and to Epicurus, and to Marcion, saying that just as each of those men, by the doctrine which he devised, made his disciples called Platonists, Manichaeans, Epicureans, and Marcionites, in like manner also, when Christ devised a doctrine, Christians were called from him. If anyone therefore defends this same Theodore, who blasphemed such things, and does not anathematize him, and his writings, and those who have held or hold similar opinions to him, let such a one be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"XII. Si quis defendit conscripta Theodoreti quæ exposuit pro Nestorio hæretico adversus rectam fidem, et Ephesinam primam sanctam synodum, et S. Cyrillum, et duodecim ejus capitula, in quibus sceleratis conscriptis idem Theodoretus affectualem dicit unitatem Dei Verbi ad hominem quemdam, de quo blasphemans dixit, quod palpavit Thomas eum qui resurrexit, et adoravit eum qui resuscitavit; et propter hoc impios vocat doctores Ecclesiae qui unitatem secundum subsistentiam Dei Verbi ad carnem confitentur; et super hæc Dei Genitricem abnegat sanctam et gloriosam semper virginem Mariam. Si quis igitur memorata conscripta Theodoreti defendit, et non anathematizat ea, talis anathema sit. Propter tales enim blasphemias ab episcopatu dejectus est, et postea in Manete Chalcedonensi concilio compulsus est omnia contraria memoratis suis conscriptis facere, et rectam ademi confieri.","english":"XII. If anyone defends the writings of Theodoret which he set forth on behalf of Nestorius the heretic against the right faith, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and against St. Cyril and his twelve chapters, in which accursed writings the same Theodoret speaks of a merely affective unity of God the Word with a certain man, concerning whom he blasphemously said that Thomas touched him who had risen and worshiped him who raised him; and on this account he calls the doctors of the Church impious who confess the unity of God the Word with the flesh according to subsistence; and beyond these things he denies the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God. If anyone, therefore, defends the aforementioned writings of Theodoret and does not anathematize them, let such a one be anathema. For because of such blasphemies he was cast down from the episcopate, and afterward at the Council of Chalcedon he was compelled to do all things contrary to his aforementioned writings and to confess the right faith.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"XIII. Si quis defendit impiam epistolam quam ad Marim Persam hæreticum Ibas scripisse dicitur, quæ abnegat Deum Verbum bominem factum esse, et dicit non Deum Verbum ex virgine incarnatum, natum esse, sed purum hominem ex ipsa esse natum, quem templum vocat, ut alius sit Deus Verbum, et alius homo; et super hæc injuriat Ephesinam primam synodum, quaM sine inquisitione et examinatione ab ipsa Nestorio condemnato, et sanctum Cyrillum vocat haereticum, et duodecim ejus capitulo impia dicit, Nestorium autem et Theodorum cum iMpiis eorum conscriptis collaudat et defendit. Si quis igitur, sicut dictum est, eamdem ipsam epistolam vindicat, vel rectam eise dicit ipsam vel partem ipsius, sed non anathematizat eam, anathema sit. Tali ergo impia epistola juste anathematizata0 propter insertas ei blasphemias, Theodori et Nestorii impiorum sequaces conantur dicere, susceptam esee eam a sancto Chalcedonensi concilie. Boc autem dicunt, sanctam quidem Chalcedonensem synodum calumniantes, nomine autem ejus festinantes debita condemnatione liberari Theodorum et Nestorium, et impiam epistolam, pro qua Ibas sæpius accusatus, non est ausus eam suam dicere propter insertas ei blasphemias. Et hæc demonstrabimus ex his quæ diverse de ista causa mota sunt. In his enim quæ apud Photium et Eustathium [a Photio et Eustathio] Tyri acta sunt, cum accusaretur prædictus Ibas de injuriis S.","english":"XIII. If anyone defends the impious letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, a heretic, which denies that God the Word became man, and says that God the Word was not incarnate and born of the virgin, but that a mere man was born of her, whom it calls a temple, so that one is God the Word and another is the man; and in addition to these things insults the first synod of Ephesus, which condemned Nestorius without inquiry and examination by it, and calls St. Cyril a heretic, and says that his twelve chapters are impious, but praises and defends Nestorius and Theodore together with their impious writings. If anyone, therefore, as has been said, vindicates that same letter, or says that it or a part of it is orthodox, but does not anathematize it, let him be anathema. Since, therefore, that impious letter has been justly anathematized because of the blasphemies inserted in it, the followers of the impious Theodore and Nestorius attempt to say that it was accepted by the holy Council of Chalcedon. But in saying this they slander the holy synod of Chalcedon, while in its name they hasten to free Theodore and Nestorius and the impious letter from the condemnation they deserve, on account of which Ibas, though often accused, did not dare to call it his own because of the blasphemies inserted in it. And we shall demonstrate these things from the proceedings that were set in motion in various ways concerning this matter. For in the acts held at Tyre before Photius and Eustathius, when the aforesaid Ibas was accused of the injuries","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Cyrilli, manifeste confessus esi, post unitatem Orientalium, quae ad sanctæ memoriæ Cyrillum facta cst, nihil injuriosum de eo coisse. Epistola autem plena predictis blasphemiis, pro quibus accusabatur Ibas, multas contra S. Cyrillum injurias continens, facta esse ostenditur post unitatem ad Orientales factam, ex quo demonstratur Ibas eam aboegasse. Unde prædicti Photius et Eustathius satisfacientes accusatoribus in scriptis definierunt, prædictum Ibam omnia contraria epistole peragere sicut judicium ab eis de hoc datum significat. Sed cum Ibas non adimplesset ea quae illi iudicaverunt, ejectus est ab episcopatu propter blasphemia prædictæ epistolae, et Nonnus pro illo ordinatus est, qui et consedit in sancto Chalcedonensi concilio. De eisdem igitur etiam Chalcedone accusatus memoratus Ibas post lectionem impiæ epistolae non est ausus eam suam esse confiteri, sed statim ipsis verbis intulit, alienum se esse eorum quae ei inferebantur. Unde sancta synodus, cum ei non sufficeret abnegatio Ibæ, quae facta est de impiæ epistola compulit eum contraria ei peragere, id est reprobatam in ea rectam fidem confiteri, et Ephesinam primam sanctam synodum suscipere, et sanctum Cyrillum Patrem et doctorem ascribere quas in eadem impia epistola injuriantur, et Nestorium impiumque ejus dogma anathematizare, quæ et impia epistola defendit et collaudat.","english":"Of Cyril, you have manifestly confessed that after the union of the Orientals which was made with Cyril of holy memory, nothing injurious concerning him was assembled. But the letter full of the aforesaid blasphemies, for which Ibas was accused, containing many injuries against St. Cyril, is shown to have been made after the union made with the Orientals, from which it is demonstrated that Ibas rejected it. Whence the aforesaid Photius and Eustathius, giving satisfaction to the accusers, defined in writing that the aforesaid Ibas was doing all things contrary to the letter, as the judgment given by them concerning this signifies. But since Ibas did not fulfill those things which they judged, he was ejected from the episcopate because of the blasphemy of the aforesaid letter, and Nonnus was ordained in his place, who also sat in the holy Council of Chalcedon. Concerning these same matters, therefore, the remembered Ibas, when accused also at Chalcedon, after the reading of the impious letter did not dare to confess that it was his, but immediately added these very words, that he was a stranger to the things which were being brought against him. Whence the holy synod, since the denial of Ibas which was made concerning the impious letter did not suffice for him, compelled him to do things contrary to it, that is, to confess the right faith which is reprobated in it, and to receive the first holy synod of Ephesus, and to ascribe as Father and teacher St. Cyril, whom they injure in that same impious letter, and to anathematize Nestorius and his impious dogma, which that impious letter also defends and praises.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Si igitur et ipse Ibas propter impiam epistolam sæpius accusatus, non est ausus eam suam dicere, sed etiam Chalcedonense sanctum concilium omnia ei contraria compulit emim peragere: quomodo eadem sancta synodus memoratam epistolam susciperet, et condemnationi impietatis quæ in ea continetur, sese subjiceret, a qua Ibam liberare festinavit? Quoniam autem omnes blasphemias epistote prætermittentes hæretici, hoc solum ex ipsa proferunt, quod ad decipiendos simplieiores scriptor epistolae dixit, hoc est, duas naturas, unam virtutem, unam personam; demonstrabimus quod ipse etiam in hoc suam commiscuit impietatem. Cujus enim diceret duas naturas et unam personam, qui abnegat Deum Verbum incarnatum de sancta et gloriosa Dei Genitrice et semper virgine Maria, et natum esse ex ipsa? Sed certum esi, quod unicuique naturæ suam personam attribuit, sicut Theodorus et Nestorius in suris libris blasphemantes exposuerunt, quos defeadit scriptor epistolæ cum eorum impietate.","english":"If, therefore, Ibas himself, having been accused repeatedly because of his impious letter, did not dare to call it his own, but even the holy Council of Chalcedon compelled him to carry out all things contrary to it, how would that same holy synod have received the said letter and subjected itself to the condemnation of impiety that is contained in it, from which it hastened to free Ibas? But since the heretics, passing over all the blasphemies of the letter, bring forth from it only this one thing, which the writer of the letter said in order to deceive the simpler sort—that is, two natures, one virtue, one person—we will demonstrate that he too in this mingled his own impiety. For whose sake would he speak of two natures and one person, who denies that God the Word was incarnate of the holy and glorious Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her? But it is certain that he assigned to each nature its own person, as Theodore and Nestorius set forth blaspheming in their own books, whom the writer of the letter defends together with their impiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"Illi enim aperte dicentes duas personas Dei Verbi et Christi, quem purum hominem vocant, per affectualem eonjunctionem, et per eamdem dignitatem et honorem unam personam apparere dicunt; sed et duarwn naturarum unam virtutem sive potentiam 4ieens scriptor epistolae, manifestus est quod et iR hoe memoratos hæreticos sequitur, Theodoram quidem dicentem in diverais libris de incarnatione impie expositis, Nestorium autem in multis quidem scriptis, et maxime in epistola scripta ad Alexandrum Hierapolitanum haereticum, quod duarum naturarum una est auctoritas, et una virtus, sive potentia, et una persona [secundum unam] per dignitatem eumdemque honorem: ex quo ostenditur, qui scripsit epistolam, secundum illorum perfidiam pro personis usus vocabulo naturarum. Una enim auctoritas, et una virtus sive potentia, et una dignitas et idem honor, non in diversis naturis, sed in diversis personis ejusdem substantiae dicitur, quod in sancta Trmitate confitemur. Unde et sancti Patres anathematizaverunt eos qui per auctoritatem, aut virtutem, sive potentiam, aut dignitatem, aut aequalitatem honoris, dicunt Deum Verbum unitum esse Christo; quem purum hominem vocant Theodori etNestorii sequaces, sed non secundum subsistentiam Dei Verbi ad carnem animatum anima rationali et intellectuali, unitatem factam esse confitentur.","english":"For those who openly say that there are two persons—of God the Word and of Christ, whom they call a mere man—through an affective conjunction, and through the same dignity and honor they say that one person appears; but also that of two natures there is one virtue or power, the writer of the letter says, it is manifest that in this too he follows the aforementioned heretics—Theodore, who says in various books implously expounded on the incarnation, and Nestorius, who says in many writings, and especially in the letter written to Alexander of Hierapolis, a heretic, that of two natures there is one authority, and one virtue or power, and one person according to one [principle] through dignity and the same honor. From this it is shown that the one who wrote the letter, according to their perfidy, used the term \"natures\" for \"persons.\" For one authority, and one virtue or power, and one dignity and the same honor, is said not in diverse natures but in diverse persons of the same substance, which we confess in the Holy Trinity. Hence also the holy Fathers anathematized those who say that God the Word was united to Christ through authority, or virtue or power, or dignity, or equality of honor—whom the followers of Theodore and Nestorius call a mere man—but they do not confess that the unity of God the Word to the flesh, animated with a rational and intellectual soul, was made according to subsistence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Et hæc quidem sufBciebant ad convincendam impietatem eorum qui sceleratam epistolam vindicant: tamen et in fine scriptor ejusdem epistolae ostendit suam perfidiam, dicendo quod oportet credere in templum, et in eum qui habitat in templo: per quæ aperte duas introducit personas. Sed et istam in'pietatem a Theodoro et Nestorio scriptor epistolae edoctus est. Catholica autem Ecclesia talem condemnans perfidiam, non in templum, et in eum qui habitat in templo, sed in unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Dei Verbum incarnatum et hominem factum conliteri et credere tradit. Nihil autem mirandum est, si vocabulo naturarum usus est scriptor illius impiae epistolæ. Solent enim hæretici, ut simpliciores decipiant, vocibus quidem uti quae ab orthodoxis pie dicuntur, rectum autem earum intellectum et expositionem ad (suam impietatem transferre: quoniam autem [ interdum ] eædem voces, quando bene exponuntur et intelliguntur, cum pietate sunt; quando autem male ab haereticis intelliguntur et proferuntur, impietatem habent. Itaque Nestorium duas quidem naturas et unam personam dicentem, non confitentem autem earum unitatem secundum sobsistentiam, Ephesina prima synodus, cujus auctores erant Coelestinus et Cyrillus sanctae memoriae, non suscepit, sed condemnavit.","english":"And these things were indeed sufficient to refute the impiety of those who defend the wicked letter; yet the writer of that same letter also shows his own perfidy at the end, saying that one must believe in the temple, and in him who dwells in the temple: by which words he openly introduces two persons. But the writer of the letter was also taught this impiety by Theodore and Nestorius. The catholic Church, however, condemning such perfidy, hands down that we should confess and believe not in the temple, and in him who dwells in the temple, but in one Lord our Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate and made man. But it is no wonder if the writer of that impious letter used the term \"natures.\" For heretics are accustomed, in order to deceive the simple, to use words that are piously spoken by the orthodox, but to transfer the right understanding and exposition of them to their own impiety: for sometimes these same words, when they are rightly expounded and understood, are with piety; but when they are wrongly understood and uttered by heretics, they have impiety. Therefore Nestorius, saying indeed two natures and one person, but not confessing their unity according to subsistence, the first synod of Ephesus, whose authors were Celestine and Cyril of holy memory, did not receive, but condemned.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"Nos autem sanctorum Patrum doctrinam per omnia sequentes, et unitatem duarum naturarum, ex quibus Dominus noster Jesus Christus unus sanctæ Trinitatis, Deus Verbum inearnatus, compositus est, et quod earum differentia non interempta est propter unitatem, in superioribus apertius demonstravimus. Et sufficiebant quidem quae prædiximus, satisfacere eis qui nolunt contendere. Sed quoniam illi qui semel ad impietatein declinaverunt, et alia proponere conantur, necessario nos et tales eorum occasiones vanas ostendemus. Dicunt enim non oportere vituperare impiam epistotam, eo quod in aliquantis fertur codicibus. Sed si hoc aliquis secundum eorum dementiam sufficiat [F. suscipiat], oportet et Nestorium et Eutychem suscipi, quoniam plurima et de his in gestis continentur quæ apud synodum acta sunt. Sed nemo sapiens diclis eorum animum intendet. Quae enim de hæreticis proferuntur in synodis et pars gestorum fiunt, non ad liberationem inseruntur, sed ad majorem condemnationem eorum, et qui eis similia sapiunt. I Quamvis autem exemplaria impiae epistolae quae circumferuntur, in aliquibus codicibus, ut dictum est, inserta sint, tamen in authenticis in quibus sanctissimi episcopi subscripserunt, nullatenus inveniuntur.","english":"But we, following the doctrine of the holy Fathers in all things, have shown more plainly in the foregoing that the unity of the two natures, from which our Lord Jesus Christ, the one God the Word incarnate of the holy Trinity, is composed, and that the difference between them was not destroyed on account of the unity. And indeed what we have said was sufficient to satisfy those who do not wish to contend. But since those who have once inclined to impiety attempt to bring forward other things as well, we must necessarily show that such pretexts of theirs are also vain. For they say that the impious letter ought not to be censured, because it is found in certain codices. But if this should suffice anyone according to their folly, then Nestorius and Eutyches must also be accepted, since very many things concerning them are contained in the acts which were done at the synod. But no wise person will direct his mind to their words. For the things which are brought forward concerning heretics in synods and become part of the acts are not inserted for their liberation, but for their greater condemnation, and of those who hold similar opinions to them. And although the copies of the impious letter which are circulated have been inserted in some codices, as has been said, yet in the authentic ones in which the most holy bishops subscribed, they are in no way found.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"Oportet autem etiam illud attendere eos qui veritatem perscrutantur, quod forsitan in conciliis quaedam a certis ibi convenientibus dicuntur, aut per favorem, aut per contrarieta tem, aut per ignorantiam. Nemo autem attendit ea quæ per partem a quibusdam dicuntur: sed sola illa quae ab omnibus communi consensu detiniuntur. Si enim aliquis secundum illos voluerit attendere ejusmodi contrarietates, unaquaeque synodus invenietur semelipsam destruens. Propter haec igitur oportebat eos, si sanctum concilium recte susciperent, non tales blasphemias ei applicare, sed sequi doctores catholicæ Ecclesiæ, et maxime sanctum Athanasium, qui fuit Alexandriæ episcopus, et plurimos et magnos labores suscepit pro recta Christianorum fide adversus omnem haeresin, et maxime contra impiissimos Arianos. Ipsis enim Arianis ad decipiendos populos suo errori coujungentibus Dionysium, qui ante multos annos Athanasii [multis annis ante Athanasium] fuit Alexandriae episcopus, et dicentibus quod et ipso Dionysius similia eis sapuit, Athanasius magnus Ecclesiæ doctor multis modis ostendit in scriptis, rectam fidem Dionysium ab initio prædicasse, nulloque modo participem Arianæ impietatis fuisse. Isti autem hærctica sapientes, suam impietatem eidem synodo applicare festinant. Qualis autem est condemnatio, et qualis imminet maledictio eis qui in Patres peccant, docet nos et divina Scriptura.","english":"But those who scrutinize the truth must also attend to this: that in councils certain things are said by certain persons assembled there, either through favor, or through opposition, or through ignorance. But no one attends to the things said by some in part; only those things which are held by all by common consent. For if anyone wishes, according to them, to attend to such contradictions, every synod will be found to destroy itself. For these reasons, therefore, it was fitting for them, if they rightly received the holy council, not to apply such blasphemies to it, but to follow the teachers of the catholic Church, and especially the holy Athanasius, who was bishop of Alexandria, and who undertook very many and great labors for the right faith of Christians against every heresy, and especially against the most impious Arians. For when the Arians themselves, to deceive the peoples, joined Dionysius, who many years before was bishop of Alexandria [many years before Athanasius], to their own error, and said that Dionysius himself had understood things similar to them, the great Athanasius, teacher of the Church, showed in his writings in many ways that Dionysius preached the right faith from the beginning, and was in no way a participant in the Arian impiety. But these men, thinking heretically, hasten to apply their own impiety to the same synod. But what kind of condemnation, and what kind of curse hangs over those who sin against the Fathers, the divine Scripture also teaches us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"Si enim Gham filius Noe (Genes. IX) cum vidisset nudum suum patrem, quoniam non cooperuit patris corporalem nuditalem, sed egressus nuntiavit eam fratribus, et illi vestimento eam cooperuerunt, ipse quidem Cham, et illi qui ex ipso nati sunt, sub maledictione facti sunt; qui autem cooperuerunt, magnam benedictionem meruerunt: multo magis isti majore et ampliore condemnatione digni sunt, qui ad synodum minime pertinentem infamiam, festinant per impietatem epistolae, et Theodori, eidem sanctae synodo applicare. Sed non ideo impia epistola, vel defendentes eam, condemnationem suæ impietatis effugient: sed neque Theodorus, qui paganos et Judæos, et omnes hæreticos impietate superat. Impio enim Theodoro non suffecit super alias ejus blasphemias ad suum errorem male interpretari symbolum trecentorum decem et octo sanctorum Patrum, sed etiam contempto eo, aliud symbolum exposuit omni impietate plenum, in quo anathematizare ausus est eos qui aliter sapiunt vel tradunt, ut, quantum ad illius insaniam pertinet, omnes sancti apostoli et Patres condemnarentur. Hoc autem Theodori impium symbolum et in Ephesina prima synodo prolatum, et in Chalcedonensi recitatum, ab utraque synodo cum ejus expositore, et eis qui illud suscipiunt, condemnatum est.","english":"For if Cham, the son of Noah (Gen. 9), when he had seen his father naked, because he did not cover his father's bodily nakedness but went out and reported it to his brothers, and they covered it with a garment—Cham himself indeed, and those who were born from him, were made subject to a curse; but those who covered him merited a great blessing—how much more do those deserve a greater and fuller condemnation who hasten, through the impiety of the letter, to attach to that most holy synod an infamy that does not pertain to it at all, and [the infamy] of Theodore as well. But the impious letter, or those who defend it, will not for that reason escape the condemnation of their own impiety; nor will Theodore, who surpasses the pagans and Jews and all heretics in impiety. For it did not suffice for the impious Theodore, beyond his other blasphemies, to misinterpret the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers to his own error, but even, having despised it, he set forth another symbol full of all impiety, in which he dared to anathematize those who think or hand down otherwise, so that, as far as his madness is concerned, all the holy apostles and Fathers would be condemned. But this impious symbol of Theodore, both produced at the first synod of Ephesus and recited at Chalcedon, was condemned by both synods together with its expositor and those who accept it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"Quoniam autem quidam, verba pro Tbeodoro facientes, cum proferuntur impia ejus conscripta, propter insertam eis blasphemiam confingunt quidem dicere quod impia sunt, ipsum autem qui talem in,pietatem evomuit, recusant anathematizare: miramur eorum dementiam, quod divinæ Scripturæ contraria agunt, evidenter dicenti, quia æqualiter horribilia sunt apud Deum impius et impietas ejus (Sap. xiv). Actio enim cum auctore [actore] 'punietur: si autem similiter impietati horribilis est Deo et ille qui impie agit, certe separatus est talis a Deo, et anathemati juste subjicitur. Anathema enim nihil aliud significat, nisi a Deo separationem, sicut in Veteri et Novo Testamento judicium de anathemate significat. Quod autem et Dominus eos qui non permanent in Verbo veritatis ipsius, separatos esse ab Ecclesia dicit, in Evangelio secundum Joannem Judæos alloquens, sic ait: Omnis qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Servus autem non manet in domo in æternum; filius autem permanet in æternum (Joan. VIII). Quod autem, quam Dominus nominat domum, divina Scriptura Ecclesiam Dei vivi vocat, Apostolus testatur in Epistola prima ad Timotheum (Cap. III).","english":"But since certain persons, speaking on Theodore's behalf, when his impious writings are brought forward, on account of the blasphemy inserted in them, while they pretend to say that they are impious, yet refuse to anathematize the man himself who vomited forth such impiety—we marvel at their madness, that they act contrary to the divine Scripture, which plainly says that the impious man and his impiety are alike horrible before God (Wis. 14). For the deed is punished together with its author; but if the impiety is alike horrible to God, and also the man who acts impiously, then certainly such a man is separated from God, and is justly subjected to anathema. For anathema signifies nothing other than separation from God, as in the Old and New Testament the judgment concerning anathema signifies. And that the Lord also says that those who do not remain in the Word of his truth are separated from the Church, when in the Gospel according to John he addresses the Jews, he speaks thus: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever (John 8). And that what the Lord calls the house, the divine Scripture calls the Church of the living God, the Apostle testifies in the first Epistle to Timothy (chap. 3).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"Si vero quidam dicunt, non oportere Theodorum post mortem anathematizari, sciant qui talem hæreticum defendunt, quod omnis hæreticus usque ad finem vitae in suo errore permanens, juste perpetuo anathemati et post mortem subjicitur. Et hoc in multis hæreticis et antiquioribus et propioribus factum est, id est Yalentino, Basilide, Marcione, Cerintho, Manichæo, Eunomio, et Bonoso. Hoc autem idem et in Tbeodoro factum est, et in vita accusato, et post mortem anathematizato a sanctis Patribus, quibus si tradere noluerint at haeretici ejus defensorea, vel impiæ epistolæ, quam ipsi defendunt, ttedant. Quae licet Theodorum collaudet, manifeste tamen dicit, quod in Ecelesia a sanctis Patribus anathematizatus esi, et es iUo plurima inquisitio facta est de ejus conscriptis, ut pote plenis impietate. Hoc autem tunc faciebant catholicæ Ecclesiæ doctores, ne simplicieres legentesillius impia conscripta, a recta fide declinarent. Quod autem impii, licet non in vita in suam personam anathema susceperint, tumen et post mortem anathematizentur I catholica Ecclesia, ostenditur a sanctis synodis. Nicæna enim synodus eos qui impii [Impiam] Arii sectam colunt, sine nomine anathematizavit. Que autem Constantinopoli congregata est, impiam Macedonii hæresim similiter condemnavit; sed tamen sancta Dei Ecclesia et post mortem Arium et Macedonium neminatum anathematizat.","english":"But if certain persons say that Theodore ought not to be anathematized after death, let those who defend such a heretic know that every heretic who persists in his error even to the end of life is justly subjected to perpetual anathema even after death. And this has been done in the case of many heretics, both more ancient and more recent, that is, Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Cerinthus, Manichaeus, Eunomius, and Bonosus. This same thing has also been done in the case of Theodore, accused during his life and anathematized after death by the holy Fathers; and if they are unwilling to hand these things down, let them at least be ashamed, as defenders of his heresy, or of the impious letter which they themselves defend. For although that letter praises Theodore, it nevertheless clearly says that he was anathematized in the Church by the holy Fathers, and that a very great inquiry was made concerning his writings, as being full of impiety. And this the teachers of the catholic Church did at that time, lest the simpler sort, reading his impious writings, should decline from the right faith. But that the impious, even if during life they did not receive anathema in their own person, are nevertheless anathematized even after death by the catholic Church, is shown by the holy synods. For the synod of Nicaea anathematized those who follow the impious sect of Arius, without naming them. And the synod assembled at Constantinople similarly condemned the impious heresy of Macedonius; yet nevertheless the holy Church of God anathematizes Arius and Macedonius by name even after death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"Cum autem ex multis probationibus convincuntur, quod supervacue et impie agunt qui Theodorum et impietatem ejus defendunt ad aliam vanam occasionem confugiunt,dicentes non oportere eum anathematizari eo quod in communicatione Ecclesiarum mortuus est. Oportebat autem scire ees quod illi moriuntur in communicatione Ecclesiarum, qui commune pietatis dogma, quod in universali Ecclesia praedicatur, usque ad flnem servaverunt. Iste autem usque ad mortem in sua permanens impietate, ab omni Ecclesia ejectus est. Itaque et omnis plenitudo Mopsuestenæ Ecclesiæ, in qua episcopus dicitur fuisse propter blasphemias, ob quas paganis cum invenisset quod paganis et Judæis et Sodomitanis a sanctis Patribus connumeratus est, deleverunt ipsi ex illo a sacris Ecclesiæ diptychis ejus nomen, sicut gesta de hoc in eadem civitate apud concilium episcoporum illius provinciae confecta ostendunt. Miramur igitur Tbeodori sequaces, qui eum et impietatem ejus tanquam suam defendunt, cum Ecclesia, in qua fuit episcopus, ut pote haereticum ex multis temporibus eum ejecerit. Quod autem ad condemnationem suam talem occasionem [prætextum] proponunt defenseres Theodori, scire licet et ex ipso adversus Judam facto tremendo judicio. Ille enim cum putasset latere eum qui occulta bomiuum cognoscit, sacramentis communicavit caRn apostolis: sed tamen nihil ei profuit quod cum dolo communicavit.","english":"But when they are convicted by many proofs that those who defend Theodore and his impiety act vainly and impiously, they flee to another empty pretext, saying that he ought not to be anathematized because he died in communion with the Churches. But they ought to know that those die in communion with the Churches who have preserved the common dogma of piety, which is preached in the universal Church, to the end. But this man, persisting in his impiety even to death, was cast out from every Church. Therefore also the whole fullness of the Church of Mopsuestia, in which he is said to have been bishop, on account of the blasphemies for which, when he had been found out, he was numbered by the holy Fathers with the pagans and Jews and Sodomites, erased his name from the sacred diptychs of the Church, as the acts concerning this matter drawn up in the same city at the council of the bishops of that province show. We wonder, therefore, at the followers of Theodore, who defend him and his impiety as their own, since the Church in which he was bishop cast him out as a heretic long ago. But that the defenders of Theodore put forward such a pretext for their own condemnation, it is fitting to know also from the very fearful judgment enacted against Judas. For he, when he thought that he who knows the hidden things of men was hidden from him, partook of the sacraments with the apostles; but nevertheless it profited him nothing that he partook with deceit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"Sed licet post mortem ejus da.. decim nominati sint discipuli, sicut Joannes evange lista dicit: Thomas autem, qui Didymus dicebatur, unus ex duodecim, non erat cum ipsis quando venit Jesus (loan. XX): tamen hoc non liberat Judam a condemnatione, aut connumerari facit apostolis. Unde post ascensionem Domini, apostoli per suam sententiam eumdem Judam etiam post mortem condemnaverunt, et alium pro illo introduxerunt (cot. I). Quod autem vaoam occasionem proponunt, dicentes non oportere haereticos mortuos anathematizari, et cx ipsis Domini verbis ostendemus. Impios enim et adhuc vivos, mortuos nominat, dicens: Dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos (Matth. VIII): sicut justos et jam defunctos, vivos nominat. Dicit enim de Abraham et Isaac et Jacob, quod Deus non est Deus mortuorum. sed viventium (Matth. XXII). Si ergo secundum verba illorum non oportet haereticos mortuos anathematizari, nec viri hæretici anathematizabuntur, quos Dominus mortuos vocat, quia separati sunt ab ipso qui dixit: Ego sum vita (Joan. XI et XIV), et secundum eos jam nec vivi, nec mortui hxretici anathematizabuntur; et sine causa,secundum illos, apostolica doctrina (Galat. I) tradit anathematizari eos qui tradunt præter quod accepimus: sine causa sanctæ synodi haereticos condemnaverunt, sine causa et alii saucti Patres et doctores Ecclesiæ haereticos anathematizaverunt.","english":"But although after his death twelve named disciples may have been appointed, as John the Evangelist says: \"But Thomas, who was called Didymus, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came\" (John 20), nevertheless this does not free Judas from condemnation, nor does it make him counted among the apostles. Hence after the Lord's ascension, the apostles by their own judgment condemned this same Judas even after death, and introduced another in his place (Acts 1). But the empty pretext they put forward, saying that dead heretics ought not to be anathematized, we shall also demonstrate from the Lord's own words. For he calls the impious, even while still alive, dead, saying: \"Let the dead bury their dead\" (Matthew 8); just as he calls the righteous, even when already deceased, living. For he says of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob that God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22). If, then, according to their words, dead heretics ought not to be anathematized, then neither will heretical men be anathematized, whom the Lord calls dead because they are separated from him who said: \"I am the life\" (John 11 and 14); and according to them, heretics will no longer be anathematized either as living or as dead; and according to them, the apostolic teaching (Galatians 1) gives the command to anathematize those who hand on anything beyond what we have received to no purpose; to no purpose have the holy synods condemned heretics, to no purpose have other holy Fathers and doctors of the Church anathematized heretics.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"Inculpent autem et Jeremiam prophetam dicentem: Exsecrandus qui opera Domini facit negligenter (Jer. XLVIII); et David prophetam dicentem: Exsecrandi qui declinant a mandalia tuis (Psal. CXVIII); et nt compendiose dicamus, omnem divinam Scripturam in diversis locis tales condemnationes impiis inferentem. Sin autem illi qui negligenter opera Dei faciunt, et peccant in mandatis ejus, talibus condemnationibus subjiciuntur: quanto magis impius Theodorus, qui talia adversus ipsum magnum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum blasphemavit, juste condemnatusestet anathematizatus?\n\nEt haec quidem sufGciebant, super [superius] memoratas et aliis nostris libris insertas probationes, quas protulimus, ostendentes, quod oportet etiam post mortem hæreticos condemnari, confundere eos qui Theodorum defendunt, et compescere a tali impietate. Quoniam autem contensiose in iisdem permanent, etiam quod est amplius, dicimus quia quidam ex ipsis qui in Nicæna sancta synodo convenerunt, et expositae ab ea fidei definitioni vel symbolo subscripserunt, quoniam postea contraria sapientes apparucrunt, alii quidem vivi, ani autem post mortem anathematizati sunt a Damaso sanctæ memoriæ papa antiquioris Romæ, et ab universali Sardicensi synodo, prout testatur sanctus Atbanasius.","english":"But they will also cite the prophet Jeremiah, who says: \"Cursed is he who does the works of the Lord negligently\" (Jer. 48); and the prophet David, who says: \"Cursed are those who turn aside from your commandments\" (Ps. 118); and, to speak briefly, all divine Scripture, which in various places brings such condemnations upon the impious. But if those who do the works of God negligently, and sin against his commandments, are subjected to such condemnations, how much more is the impious Theodore, who blasphemed such things against the great God himself and our Savior Jesus Christ, justly condemned and anathematized?\n\nAnd these things were indeed sufficient, in addition to the proofs mentioned above and inserted in our other books, which we have brought forward, showing that heretics ought to be condemned even after death, to confound those who defend Theodore, and to restrain them from such impiety. But since they persist contentiously in the same views, we say even more: that certain of those who gathered at the holy synod of Nicaea, and who subscribed to the definition of faith or the symbol set forth by it, since afterward they appeared to hold contrary opinions, some indeed while alive, but others after death, were anathematized by Damasus, pope of holy memory of elder Rome, and by the universal synod of Sardica, as Saint Athanasius testifies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"Sed et Cbalcedonensis sancta synodus Domnum Antiochiæ factum episcopum post mortem condemnavit, quod solum ausus est scribere, oportere taceri duodecim capitula sancti Cyrilli.\n\nQuoniam autem Tbeodori defensores hæretici, omni propositione et conatu excidentes, præsumunt dicere ad deceptionem ignorantium, quod sanctae memoriæ Cyrillus in aliqua parte epistolae Illum collaudavit; ex multis ostenditur, quod non convenit eorum conamen dictis a S. Cyrillo in diversis eas libris contra impium Theodorum, in quibus magis impium omnibus aliis haereticis eum ostendens, deinde non sustinens plurimas et maximas ejus blasphemias contra magnum Deum et Salvatorem nostrum Jesus Christum dictas, exclamavit, ita dicens: Expavit cœlum super hoc, et horruit amplius vehementer, dicit Dominus. intolerabilem malignitatem, linguam loquentem iniquitatem contra Deum, et in altitudinem cornu extollentem! » (Et iterum: Impone, homo, tuae linguae ostium et seram, cessa cornu In altitudinem extollens, et loquens iniquitatem adversus Deum. Quousque insultas patienti Christo? In mente habe scriptum a divino Paulo: Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes eorum infirmam conscientiam, in Christum peccati (I Cor. VIII). Et ut aliquid etiam ex propheticis loquar codicibus: Justificata est Sodoma ex te (Ezech.","english":"But the holy synod of Chalcedon also condemned Domnus of Antioch, who had been made bishop after his death, for this alone: that he dared to write that the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril ought to be passed over in silence.\n\nBut since the heretical defenders of Theodore, failing in every argument and attempt, presume to say, to the deception of the ignorant, that Cyril of holy memory praised him in some part of a letter, it is shown from many considerations that their attempt does not agree with what Saint Cyril said in various books against the impious Theodore, in which, showing him to be more impious than all other heretics, and then not enduring his very many and very great blasphemies spoken against the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, he cried out, saying thus: \"The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly more, says the Lord—at the intolerable malice, at the tongue speaking iniquity against God, and lifting up its horn on high!\" And again: \"Set, O man, a door and a bolt upon your tongue; cease lifting up your horn on high, and speaking iniquity against God. How long will you insult the patient Christ? Keep in mind what was written by the divine Paul: 'But so sinning against the brethren, and striking their weak conscience, you sin against Christ' (1 Cor. 8). And that I may speak something also from the prophetic books: 'Sodom has been justified by you' (Ezek.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"XVI), superasti paganorum verbositales, quas contra Christum fecerunt, stultitiam existimantes crucem (1 Cor. vII, nihil esse ostendisti Judaicae superbiæ crimina. His igitur ad condemnationem Theodori sic a sancto Cyrillo dictis, licet aliquis concedat, secundum illorum verba sanctum Cyrillum aliquid pro Theodoro dixisse, neque hoc liberat illum a condemnatione. Invenimus enim, quod multi sanctorum Patrum quosdam haereticos collaudaverunt, sicut et sancti Damasus et Athanasius et Basilius Apollinarium, et sanctus [sanctæ memoriæ] Leo Eo... tychen: et tamen cognita eorum impietale, non propter hoc evaserunt hæretici condemnationem et anathema, quod postea contra eorum personam et impietatem factum est. Tantus autem est furor defendentium Theodorum, quia præsumunt adversus Gregorium theologum, et Joannem Constantinopolitanum mentiri, dicentes epistolas ad eumdem Theodorum plenas laudis eos direxisse: quod falsam est. Gregorius enim, cum in Constantinopoli pro veritate laborans, conversis per eum ab Ariana insania ad catholicam fidem populis, ad suam patriam reversus est, epistolas quas haeretici dolose proferunt, non ad Theodorum Mopsuestenum scripsit, sed ad Tbeodorum episcopum Tyanensem, quae est secundae Cappadociæ metropolis. Ejusdem autem provinciæ sunt et Nazianzus civitas, cujus fuerat episcopus idem sanctæ memoriae Gregorius, et Arianzus praedium, unde ortus fuerat.","english":"You have surpassed the wordy babblings of the pagans, which they uttered against Christ, thinking the cross to be foolishness; you have shown the crimes of Jewish pride to be nothing. Since, then, these things were said by Saint Cyril for the condemnation of Theodore, even if someone grants that, according to their words, Saint Cyril said something in favor of Theodore, not even this frees him from condemnation. For we find that many of the holy Fathers praised certain heretics, as also the holy Damasus and Athanasius and Basil praised Apollinarius, and the holy Leo of blessed memory praised Eutyches; and yet, once their impiety was known, the heretics did not for this reason escape the condemnation and anathema which was afterwards pronounced against their person and impiety. So great, however, is the fury of those defending Theodore that they presume to lie against Gregory the Theologian and John of Constantinople, saying that they sent letters full of praise to this same Theodore; which is false. For Gregory, when he had labored for the truth at Constantinople and, after the peoples had been converted by him from the Arian madness to the catholic faith, returned to his own homeland, wrote the letters which the heretics deceitfully produce, not to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but to Theodore, bishop of Tyana, which is the metropolis of Second Cappadocia. Of the same province, moreover, are both the city of Nazianzus, of which the same Gregory of blessed memory had been bishop, and the estate of Arianzus, from which he had been born.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"Hoc enim et ipsae epistolæ aperte significant, memoriam facientes consuetudinum et collectionum, et ejusdem prædii Arianzi, et aliorum prædiorum ejusdem provinciae, et mensis vernacula lingua Cappadocum nominati, et Bosphorii [Bospori] episcopi sub eodem Theodoro constituti, qui tunc temporis Coloniae civitatis ejusdem provinciæ episcopus erat, et aliorum episcoporum, et chorepiscoporum, et monasteriorum, quae sub Theodori jurisdictione erant, quorum usque nunc eadem nomina servantur. Qualis porro communio Cappadocibus ad secundam Ciliciam, vel tunc, vel modo divisa earum provinciarum gubernatione? Et quos episcopos sub se habere potcrat Mopsuestenus episcopus, cum ipse sub lnetropolitano secundae Ciliciæ constitutus esset? Joannes autem Constantinopolitanus scripsit quidem epistolam ad Theodorum Mopsuestenum, non tamen laudibus, sed querimoniis et increpationibus plenam, ut pote illo a bona conversatione [pietate] lapso. Quoniam enim cum eo monachicam vitam in uno eodemque monasterio exercuit, conversationis ibi factae eum admonuit: et pro his testimonium pr.cbent Sozomenus, et Hesychius, et Socrates, et Theodoretus, qui multas proTheodoro orationes et laudes fecit.","english":"For the letters themselves clearly indicate this, making mention of the customs and collections, and of the same estate of Arianzus, and of other estates of the same province, and of the month called in the native tongue of the Cappadocians, and of Bosphorius the bishop appointed under the same Theodore, who at that time was bishop of the city of Colonia in the same province, and of other bishops, and chorepiscopi, and monasteries which were under the jurisdiction of Theodore, whose same names are preserved even to now. What sort of communion, moreover, was there for the Cappadocians with Second Cilicia, either then or now, when the governance of those provinces is divided? And what bishops could the bishop of Mopsuestia have had under him, when he himself was constituted under the metropolitan of Second Cilicia? But John of Constantinople wrote a letter to Theodore of Mopsuestia, yet not full of praises, but of complaints and rebukes, as being one who had fallen from good conduct. For since he had practiced the monastic life with him in one and the same monastery, he reminded him of the conduct carried on there; and for these things Sozomen, Hesychius, Socrates, and Theodoret bear witness, who made many speeches and praises on behalf of Theodore.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"Si autem testimonia proferunt Joannis Antiocheni, et Orientalis concilii sub eo constituti, facta pro Theodoro, et ejus impiclate, necesse est eos, et illa suscipere, quæ (quantum ad illos pertinct) ad condemnationem sancti Cyrilli, et reprobationem recte fidei fecerunt Joannes et qui cum illo erunt, nec non etiam quæ scripserunt. Nestorium et ejus perfidiam diutius defendentes. Et hoc ostenditur ex diversis eorum libris et epistolis, quas ad Theodosium piae recordationis, et ad alios diversos scripserunt.\n\nEt hæc quidem sic se habent. Ut autem nihil subtilitatis prætermittamus, necessarium putavimus memorare etiam illa quae ab Augusto sanctæ memoriam Africano episcopo scripta sunt. Quaestione enim aliqua post mortem Cæciliani de eo mota, quod ab ecclesiastica traditione declinasse dicebatur, et propter hoc quibusdam a catholica Ecclesia separatis, scribit ad Bonifacium idem sanctus Augustinus, quod non oportebat, aliquos ideo separare sese a catholica Ec clesia. Si enim vera essent ea quæ Cæciliano inferebantur, et manifestatus esset contrarium aliquid ecclesiastico statui sapuisse, etiam post mortem eum anathemati subjicerem. Sed et regula sanctæ synodi Africanae statuit, episcopos qui suas facultates in testamento, vel ex intestato hæretico relinquunt, oportere et post mortem anathematizari.","english":"But if they bring forward the testimonies of John of Antioch and of the Eastern council constituted under him, made in favor of Theodore and his impiety, it is necessary that they also accept those things which (as far as pertains to them) John and those who were with him did for the condemnation of Saint Cyril and the reprobation of the right faith, and also the things which they wrote, defending Nestorius and his perfidy at greater length. And this is shown from their various books and letters, which they wrote to Theodosius of pious memory and to various others.\n\nAnd these things indeed stand thus. But so that we may omit nothing of subtlety, we have thought it necessary to mention also those things which were written by Augustine of holy memory, the African bishop. For when some question had been raised after the death of Caecilian concerning him, that he was said to have departed from ecclesiastical tradition, and on account of this certain persons had separated from the catholic Church, the same Saint Augustine writes to Boniface that it was not fitting for anyone to separate himself from the catholic Church for this reason. For if those things which were brought against Caecilian were true, and it had been made manifest that he had held something contrary to the ecclesiastical order, I would subject him to anathema even after death. But also the rule of the holy African synod established that bishops who leave their property in a will, or intestate, to a heretic, ought to be anathematized even after death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"Super hæc autem omnia, quis ignorat ea quæ nostris temporibus in Ecclesia antiquioris Romæ contra Dioscorum acta sunt? Qui cum nihil in fidem peccasset, tamen propter solum ecclesiasticum ordinem post mortem ab eadem sancta Ecclesia Romana anathematizatus est. Si igitur nihil in fidem peccantes episcopi, propter solum ecclesiasticum ordinem, et propter causam pecuniariam anathemati et post mortem subjiciuntur, quanto magis Theodorus, qui in ipsum Deum peccavit? Quantum autem ad insipientiam dicentium non oportere anathematizari post mortem eos qui in sua impietate mortui sunt: oportebat nec eos qui injuste condemnati sunt Patres post mortem revocari, quale contigit in Joanne sanctæ recordationis episcopo Constantinopolitanæ civitatis, ab universali Ecclesia post mortem revocato, et in Flaviano sanctæ memoriæ et ipso episcopo Constantinopolitanae civitatis, injuste quidem in vita condemnato, juste autcm post mortem revocato, tam a sanctæ memoriae papa Leone quam a sancta Chalcedonensi synodo. Ex hoc autem contingit secundum illorum verba, hæreticos quidem sanctis Patribus connumerari, ut pote liberatos debita eis condemnatione, sanctos autem Patres injuste condemnatos, haereticis conjungi, ut pote non soluta contra eos facta iniqua damnatione.","english":"Beyond all these things, who does not know what was done in our times in the Church of elder Rome against Dioscorus? Although he had committed no offense against the faith, nevertheless for the sake of ecclesiastical order alone, after his death, he was anathematized by that same holy Roman Church. If, therefore, bishops who committed no offense against the faith are subjected to anathema even after death for the sake of ecclesiastical order alone and for a pecuniary cause, how much more Theodore, who sinned against God himself? But as for the foolishness of those who say that those who died in their impiety ought not to be anathematized after death: then neither ought those Fathers who were unjustly condemned to be recalled after death, as happened in the case of John, of holy memory, bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was recalled after death by the universal Church, and in the case of Flavian, of holy memory, himself also bishop of the city of Constantinople, who was indeed unjustly condemned in life but justly recalled after death, both by Pope Leo of holy memory and by the holy Synod of Chalcedon. From this, however, it follows according to their words that heretics are numbered among the holy Fathers, inasmuch as they have been freed from the condemnation due them, while the holy Fathers who were unjustly condemned are joined with heretics, inasmuch as the unjust condemnation passed against them has not been annulled.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"Omnibus autem magis credendus [fide dignus] est Doctor Dominus et Deus noster Jesus Christus, de se dicens: Sic enim dilexit Deus mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habaet vitam æternam. Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Qui credit in eum, non judicatur: qui autem non credit, jam judicutus est, quia non credit in nomine unigeniti Fili Dei (Joan. III). Et Spiritus autem sanctus per prophetam David dicit (Psal. I), impios non resurrecturos in judicio. Tali igitur Domini sententia prolata adversus omnem impium, et nihil discerncute inter vivos et mortuos hæreticos, quomodo audent resistere tali sententiæ, et eos qui semel impie egerunt, et propter hoc jam i Domino condemnati sunt, dicere, non oportere post mortem condemnari? Et divinus autem [etiam] Ape. stolus, qui Christum in semetipso habet loquentem, non solum adversus homines, sed etiam adversus angelos talem protulit sententiam, dicens in epistola ad Galatas (Cap. I): Sed licet nos aut angelus de cælo evangelizaverit præterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit. Sicut prædiximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit præter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.","english":"But our Lord and God Jesus Christ is to be believed above all things, being worthy of faith, when He says of Himself: For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not judged; but whoever does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God (John 3). And the Holy Spirit also says through the prophet David (Psalm 1) that the impious will not rise again in the judgment. Therefore, since such a sentence has been pronounced by the Lord against every impious person, and He makes no distinction between the living and the dead among heretics, how do they dare to resist such a sentence, and to say of those who have once acted impiously and for this reason have already been condemned by the Lord, that they ought not to be condemned after death? And the divine Apostle also, who has Christ speaking in him, pronounced such a sentence not only against men but even against angels, saying in the epistle to the Galatians (chapter 1): But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"Et quis ita impius est, ut praesumat dicere, quod Theodori impia scripta, vel pars eorum, tradita est aliquando sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, et non statim, qui ausus est aliquid tale loqui anathemali subjectus est a sanctis Patribus?\n\nSi quis igitur post ejusmodi rectam confessionem, et haereticorum condemnationem, salvo manente pio intellectu, de nominibus vel syllabis vel dictionibus contendens, separat se a sancta Dei Ecclesia, tanquam non in rebus, sed in nominibus solis et dictionibus posita nobis pietate: talis ut pote dissensionibus gaudens, rationem pro semetipso, et pro deceptis et decipiendis ab eo, reddet magno Deo et Salvatori nostro Jesu Christo in die judicii. Amen.\n\nJustiniani imperatoris ad sanctam synodum epistola de Theodosio Mopsuesteno et reliquis.\n\nSemper quidem studium fuit orthodoxis et piis imperatoribus patribus nostris, pro tempore exortas hxreses per congregationem religiosissimorum sacerdotum amputare, et recta fide sincere praedicata, in pace sanctam Dei Ecclesiam custodire.","english":"And who is so impious as to presume to say that the impious writings of Theodore, or any part of them, were ever handed down to the holy Church of God, and that he who dared to say anything of the sort was not at once subjected to anathema by the holy Fathers?\n\nIf anyone, therefore, after such a right confession and the condemnation of heretics, while a pious understanding remains intact, contending over names or syllables or phrases, separates himself from the holy Church of God, as though piety were placed for us not in realities but in names and phrases alone: such a one, as one who rejoices in dissensions, will render an account for himself and for those deceived and to be deceived by him to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ on the day of judgment. Amen.\n\nThe letter of the Emperor Justinian to the holy synod concerning Theodosius of Mopsuestia and the rest.\n\nIt has always been the zeal of orthodox and pious emperors, our fathers, to cut off the heresies that arose from time to time through the assembly of the most religious priests, and, with right faith sincerely preached, to keep the holy Church of God in peace.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Quapropter et Constantinus Magnus, Ario blasphemante et disente Filium non esse consubstantialem Deo et Patri, sed creaturam, et ex non exstantibus factum esse, congregavit Nicææ trecentos decem et octo Patres, et cum ipse concilio interfuisset, damnato et anathematizato Ario rectam fideui confirmare studuit: per quam divini illi Patres confitentes Filium consubstantialem esse Deo et Patri, non vero creaturam et ex non exslantibus factum, usque ad hodiernum diem canitur. Theodosius autem senior, Macedonio lieganle deitatem sancti Spiritus, et Apollinario ejus discipulo blasphemante incarnati Dei Verbi dispensationem, ct dicente Dei Verbum non assumpsisse mentem humanam, sed carni animam rationalem babenti fuisse unitum, congregatis in Constantinopolitana urbe centum quinquaginta Patribus, ac ipse particeps concilii effectus, damnatis et anathemate perculsis prædictis hæreticis una cum impiis eorum dogmatibus ac sectatoribus, curam adhibuit ut recta fides prædicaretur.","english":"Therefore Constantine the Great also, when Arius was blaspheming and saying that the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father, but a creature, and was made out of things that did not exist, gathered three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea, and when he himself had taken part in the council, after Arius had been condemned and anathematized, he strove to confirm the right faith; through which those divine Fathers, confessing that the Son is consubstantial with God the Father, and not a creature and made out of things that did not exist, it is proclaimed even to this day. But Theodosius the elder, when Macedonius was fighting against the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and Apollinarius his disciple was blaspheming the dispensation of the incarnate Word of God, and saying that the Word of God did not assume a human mind, but was united to flesh having a rational soul, gathered one hundred and fifty Fathers in the city of Constantinople, and when he himself had become a participant in the council, after the aforesaid heretics had been condemned and struck with anathema together with their impious doctrines and followers, he took care that the right faith be preached.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"Tbeodosius vero Junior, impio Nestorio dicente alium esse Deum Verbum, et alium Christum, ac Verbum quidem natura esse Filium Dei et Patris, Christum vero tantum ex gratia Filium impie introducente, et sanctam Mariam Dei genitricem esse negante; congregavit priorem Ephesinam synodum ducentorum sanctorum Patrum, et directis principibus qui deberent concilio interesse, jussit et ipsum Nestorium adesse, et judicium de eo fieri: diligentique exarainatione facta, damnarunt et anathematizarunt Nestorium una cum sectatoribus ejus. His autem ita subsecutis, cum insurrexissent centra sanctissimum Cyrillum sectatores impii Nestorii, conati sunt (quantum in ipsis fnit) rescindere sententiam contra Nestorium latam. Sed Theodosius irnperator, defendens ea quae ita recte contra Nestorium et impia ejus dogmata fuerant judicata, damnationis sententiam in eum faciam ratam haberi curavit.","english":"But Theodosius the Younger, when the impious Nestorius was saying that one was God the Word and another was Christ, and was impiously introducing the doctrine that the Word was by nature the Son of God and of the Father, but that Christ was only a son by grace, and was denying that holy Mary was the Mother of God, convened the first council of Ephesus of two hundred holy Fathers, and, having sent instructions to the rulers who were to take part in the council, he ordered that Nestorius himself also be present and that judgment be made concerning him; and after a diligent examination had been carried out, they condemned and anathematized Nestorius together with his followers. When these things had thus followed, since the followers of the impious Nestorius had risen up against the most holy Cyril, they attempted, as far as was in their power, to rescind the sentence passed against Nestorius. But the emperor Theodosius, defending those things which had been so rightly judged against Nestorius and his impious doctrines, took care that the sentence of condemnation passed upon him be held as ratified.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Insuper autem cum et quaedam alia crimina divino Cyrillo apud imperatorem nugaciter impingerent, ad imperatorem Cyrillus in hanc sententiam scripsit: « Postquam mihi, piissime imperator, renuntiatum est, quosdam garrulos instar vesparum ferarum susurris suis aures tuas personare, et maledicta in me eructare, nuganles me asserereChristi divinum corpus coelo delatum, et non de sancta Virgine assumptum; itemque duos filios de sententia Nestorii confiteri: existimavi debere me adversus ipsos pauca in hanc sententiam dicere: fatui, et nullius rei nisi calumniandi gnari, quomodo in hanc devenistis sententiam, tantumque insaniae concepistis? Omnino eniin oportebat hoc vos perspicue sentire, totam fere nostram de fide disputationem inde ortam, quod nos sanctam Mariam Deiparam esse contendimus. Atqui si, ut illi dicunt, nos corpus Christi divinum cælitus venisse, non, ex ipsa natum dicimus, quomodo Deipara dici poterit? Quem enim peperit, si hoc vcrum non est, quod secundum carnem pepererit Emmanuelem? Rideantur ergo qui haec et talia de me blaterant. Non enim mentitur sanctus Isaias cum ita vaticinatur: Eccevirgo in utero habebit, et pariet filium, et vocabunt eum Emmanuel, quod est, nobiscum. Deus (Isa. XVII). Et haud dubie verum dixit Gabriel ac. changelus ita Mariam alloqueus: Ne timeas, Maria, invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum.","english":"Moreover, when certain other charges were also being frivolously hurled against the divine Cyril before the emperor, Cyril wrote to the emperor to this effect: \"After it was reported to me, most pious emperor, that certain babblers, like wild wasps, were buzzing in your ears with their whisperings and belching out curses against me, babbling that I assert that the divine body of Christ was brought down from heaven and was not taken from the holy Virgin, and likewise that I confess two sons according to the opinion of Nestorius, I thought I ought to say a few words against them to this effect: Fools, and acquainted with nothing but slander, how have you come to this opinion, and conceived so much madness? For surely you ought to have perceived this clearly, that almost our entire disputation concerning the faith arose from the fact that we maintain that holy Mary is the God-bearer. But if, as they say, we claim that the body of Christ came down from heaven and was not born from her, how can she be called God-bearer? For whom did she bear, if it is not true that she bore Emmanuel according to the flesh? Let those, then, who babble these and similar things about me be laughed at. For holy Isaiah does not lie when he prophesies thus: Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, which is, God with us (Isa. 7). And without doubt the angel Gabriel spoke the truth when he addressed Mary thus: Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum: ipse enim sulvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum (Luc. I; Matth. i). Cum autem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum dicimus desuper de coelo venisse, non eo sensu dicimus, quasi putemus eum sanctam suam carnem de coelo detulisse; sed sequimur sanctum Paulum, qui ita ait: Primus homo de terra terrenus; secundus, Dominus e cælo (1 Cor. xv). Imitamur etiam et ipsum Dominum dicentem: Nemo ascendit in cælum, nisi qui descendit de cælo, Filius hominis (Joan. I). At vero quod ad carnem attinet, natus est, sicut diximus, ex beata Virgine. Sed quoniam Verbum Dei dc coelo descendens, seipsum exinanivit, formum servi assumendo, filiusque hominis exstitit, cum tamen idem permaneret qui antea fuerat, scilicet Deus (est enim immutabilis, et nulli alterationi obnoxiae natura), cum jam unus intelligatur esse cum propria carne, dicitur de coelo venisse. Et nominatur etiam homo de coelo, cum sit perfectus in deltate, idemque perfectus in humanitate: intelligiturque una esse persona. Unus enim est Dominus Jcsus Christus, tametsi naturarum discrimen non Ignoretur, ex quibus ineffabilem illam dicimus factam unitionem.","english":"Behold, you shall conceive in the womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he will save his people from their sins (Luke 1; Matthew 1). But when we say that our Lord Jesus Christ came down from above, from heaven, we do not say this in the sense that we think he brought his holy flesh down from heaven; rather, we follow the holy Paul, who says thus: The first man is from the earth, earthly; the second, the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15). We also imitate the Lord himself, who says: No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man (John 1). But as for the flesh, he was born, as we have said, from the blessed Virgin. Yet because the Word of God, descending from heaven, emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant, and became the Son of Man, while nevertheless remaining the same as he was before, namely God (for he is unchangeable, and his nature is subject to no alteration), since he is now understood to be one with his own flesh, he is said to have come from heaven. And he is also called a man from heaven, since he is perfect in divinity and the same is perfect in humanity; and he is understood to be one person. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, even though the distinction of the natures is not unknown, from which we say that ineffable union was made.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"Fatemur itaque Vorbum, Unigenitum Dei Filium, Deum esse perfectum, et perfectum hominem corpore et anima ratione praedita constantem; quod ad deitatem attinet, ex Patre natum ante..cula, eumdem autem ultimis temporibus propter nos et propter nostram salutem ex Maria Virgine secumdum humanitatem: consubstantialem Patri secnndum divinitatem, et consubstantialem nobis secundud humanitatem. Duarum enim naturarum iacta est unio. Inde est, quod unum Christum, unum Filium, unum Dominum confitemur, atque etiam sanctam Virginem vere fuisse Deiparam, ideo quod Deus Verbum carnem induit et homo factus est, atque in ipsa conceptione sibi univit templum, quod ex ipsa assumebat. Si placet, exempli loco accipiamus nostrum ipsorum compositionem, quatenus homines sumas. Constamus nimirum anima et corpore. Ac videmus duas naturas, aliam corporis, aliam animæ; hominem vero, ex utriusque unitione facta, unum: neque compositio ex duabus naturis efficit, ut pro uno ho. mines duos cogitemus; sed unum (ot dixi) intelligimus hominem ex anima et corpore compositum. Si enim hoc tollamus, ex duabus et differentibus naturis unum et indivulsum Christum ab unitione existere, dicent adversarii: Si uua natura totius Christi est, quomodo potuit humanam naturam indaere, aut quam carnem sibi propriam asciscere?","english":"We confess therefore that the Word, the Only-begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, consisting of a body and a soul endowed with reason; as regards the Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, and the same in the last times for us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin according to the humanity: consubstantial with the Father according to the divinity, and consubstantial with us according to the humanity. For the union of two natures has been established. Hence it is that we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and also that the holy Virgin was truly Theotokos, because God the Word put on flesh and became man, and in the very conception united to himself the temple which he assumed from her. If it pleases, let us take as an example our own composition, insofar as we are men. We consist, surely, of soul and body. And we see two natures, one of the body, another of the soul; but the man, made from the union of both, is one; nor does the composition from two natures bring it about that we should think of two men instead of one; but we understand one man (as I said) composed of soul and body. For if we remove this—that from two and different natures one and undivided Christ exists by union—the adversaries will say: If there is one nature of the whole Christ, how could he put on human nature, or assume as his own the flesh?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"Eos autem qui dicunt contemperationem, confusionem aut mixtionem naturarum Verbi Dei cumcarnefactam, palamiis ora obturare tua pietas dignetur. » Post hæc autem Cyrillo mortuo, emersit monachus quidam et archimandrila nomine Eutyches. Hic non exiguam populi partem sibi adjunxit, Nestorii sectam et impium eas dogma approbans, ac dicens carnem Domini non esse consubstantialem nobis. Et rursum quidem non multo post diabolica manu praevalente, aliud Ephesi concilium latronum, et nequaquam sanctum cogitur: misso ad id etiam Flaviano Constantinopolitano, cum penes Dioscorum AlexAndrinæ episcopum summa rcrum ibi esset. Divinus autem Flavianus defcndens orthodoxam fidem, occiditur: priori vero Ephe. sinæ synodo auctoritas abrogatur, subscribentibus quibusdam episcopis lethali vi compulsis, inter quos fuit etiam Basilius Seleuciae episcopus. Hinc cum publice docerentur Nestorii, Dioscori et Eutychis perniciosa dogmata, magnique præsertim in Oriento existerent tumultus, occisi sunt Proterius sacerdos magnus, et alii plurimi.","english":"But your Piety may deign plainly to stop the mouths of those who say that a tempering, confusion, or mixture of the natures of the Word of God with the flesh was made. After this, moreover, when Cyril had died, there emerged a certain monk and archimandrite by the name of Eutyches. He joined no small part of the people to himself, approving the sect of Nestorius and his impious dogma, and saying that the flesh of the Lord is not consubstantial with us. And again, indeed, not long after, with the diabolical hand prevailing, another council of robbers at Ephesus, and by no means a holy one, is convened: Flavian of Constantinople having also been sent to it, when the chief authority there rested with Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria. But the divine Flavian, defending the orthodox faith, is killed; and the authority of the first synod of Ephesus is abrogated, with certain bishops compelled by deadly force to subscribe, among whom was also Basil, bishop of Seleucia. Hence, when the pernicious dogmas of Nestorius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches were being publicly taught, and great tumults especially were arising in the East, Proterius the high priest was killed, and very many others.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"Eo rerum statu Marcianus divinitus creatur imperator: qui coacto Chalcedone sexcentorum triginta Patrum concilio, præsentibus Dioscoro et Eutyche, ici eo una cum ipsis interfuit: ibique damnantur quidem Dioscorus et Eutyches, et iterum Nestorius anathematizatur: Theodoretus Intem, Ibas et Basilius Seleuciæ episcopus recepti sunt, cum tamen priori [lege prius, ut infra ] concilio subscripsissent. Et ita abolitis prædatoriæ synodi actis et damnatis, concordia a sanctis Patribus inter omnes conciliata est. His quatuor conciliis sic lactis et confirmatis, et auctoritatem in Ecclesia Dei obtinentibus, Nestorii sequaces denuo suam hæresim confirmaverunt opera Theodori Mopsuesteni, qui multo pejora quam Nestorius ejus discipulus blasphemavit. nos igitur sequentes sanctos patres nostros, et volentes rectam fidem sine ulla macula conservare, hortamur vos, ut hujus quoque blasphemias examinantes, de eo sectatoribus ejus sententiam feratis. Nam præter innumera alia quae impie in Cliristum Deum nostrum maledicta evomuit, id quoque protulit, alium esse Deum Verbum, alium Christum, qui animi perturbationibus et carnis cupiditatibus molestiam ipsi exhibentibus, paulatim a deterioribus desistens, factorum profectu in melius evaserit, inculpataque optimæ vitas ratione usus sit.","english":"In this state of affairs, Marcian was created emperor by divine providence. He assembled at Chalcedon a council of six hundred and thirty Fathers, and when Dioscorus and Eutyches were present, he himself was present there together with them. And there Dioscorus and Eutyches were indeed condemned, and Nestorius was anathematized again. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas, and Basil bishop of Seleucia were received, although they had subscribed to the earlier council. And so, with the acts of the robber synod abolished and condemned, concord was reconciled among all by the holy Fathers. With these four councils thus established and confirmed, and obtaining authority in the Church of God, the followers of Nestorius once again confirmed their heresy by the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who blasphemed far worse things than Nestorius his disciple. We therefore, following our holy fathers and wishing to preserve the right faith without any stain, exhort you to examine his blasphemies also and to pass sentence concerning him upon his followers. For besides countless other blasphemies which he impiously vomited forth against Christ our God, he also brought forth this: that one is God the Word, and another is Christ, who, with disturbances of the mind and desires of the flesh causing him trouble, gradually desisted from worse things, advanced to better by progress in deeds, and used a blameless manner of the best life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"Qui, ut purus homo, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti baptizatus, per baptismum gratiam Spiritus sancti consecutus, adoptione sit dignatus; et ad similitudinem regiae imaginis Christus in persona Verbi Dei adoratus, post resurrectionein animo constanti et peccatorum vacuo fuerit. Præterea pronuntiavit eam fuisse Verbi cum Christo unitionem, quas est ab Apostolo dicta viri cum muliere: Et erunt duo in una carne (1 Cor. ix). Ad haec vos hortor, ut ea etiam examinetis quæ a Theodoreto et Iba inale scripta sant contra prius Ephesinum sanctum concilium, contraque eos eodem modo sententiam feratis.\n\npatres, his rursum accurate consideralis, responderunt: Chalcedonense sacrum concilium Tbcodoretum et Ibam graviter verbis insectatum, non alia conditione in gratiam recepit, quam ut prius sua damnarent mala scripta, et Theodorum ac Nestorium. Nos autem praeter reliquos omnes hæreticos a dictiS quatuor sanctis conciliis damnatos, atque Ecclesia exclusos, damnamus etiam atque proscribimus Theo dorum, qui fuit Mopsuestiæ episcopus. ejusque. impios libros: nec non ea quæ Theodoretus male scripsit contra veram fidem, et duodecim sancti Cyrilli capita, ac primam sanctam Ephesinam synodum, et pro defensione Theodori ac Nestorii.","english":"He, as a pure man, was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, obtained through baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of adoption; and, in the likeness of the royal image, Christ in the person of the Word of God was adored, and after the resurrection he was of steadfast mind and free from sins. Furthermore, he declared that the union of the Word with Christ was that which was spoken by the Apostle of a man with a woman: And they shall be two in one flesh (1 Cor. ix). In addition to these things I urge you to examine also those things which were written by Theodoret and Ibas against the first holy council of Ephesus, and to pass judgment against them in the same manner.\n\nThe fathers, having again carefully considered these things, responded: The holy council of Chalcedon, when Theodoret and Ibas had severely attacked it in words, received them into favor on no other condition than that they first condemn their own evil writings, and Theodore and Nestorius. But we, besides all the other heretics condemned by the said four holy councils and excluded from the Church, also condemn and proscribe Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious books; and likewise those things which Theodoret wickedly wrote against the true faith, and against the twelve chapters of holy Cyril, and against the first holy synod of Ephesus, and in defense of Theodore and Nestorius.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"Praeterea damnamus etiam epistolam quam Ibas fertur scripsisse ad Marim Persam, quae negat Verbum Dei ex sancta Virgine Deipara Maria incarnatum hominem esse factum, et divum Cyrillurn pro hæretico traducit; ac primam quidem Ephesinam sacram synodum reprehendit, ut quae incognita causa Nestorium damnaverit; duodecim autem capilula sancti Cyrilli conspuit, Nestorio vero et Theodoro eorumque impiis scriptis et opinionibus patrocinatur. Quapropter effrenes hærelicorum istorum linguas, impiissimaqne scripta, ipsosque ad extremum in falsis suis opinionibus ac malitia perseverantes, optimo jure patri mendaciorum diabolo annumerantes, dicemus: Vadite in lumine ignis vestri, et in flamma quam concepisti, (Isai. L).","english":"Furthermore, we also condemn the letter that Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, which denies that the Word of God was incarnate and became man from the holy Virgin, the God-bearer Mary, and denounces the blessed Cyril as a heretic; and it indeed censures the first holy council of Ephesus, as though it had condemned Nestorius without a known cause; but it spits upon the twelve chapters of Saint Cyril, and it defends Nestorius and Theodore and their impious writings and opinions. Wherefore, reckoning with the best right to the father of lies, the devil, the unbridled tongues of these heretics and their most impious writings, and those who to the very end persist in their false opinions and malice, we shall say: Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled (Isa. 50).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}