Et post alia. Sed ad rem veniamus. Qui manducat carnem meam, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in ipso, Mementote quod de carne dicamus: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, me, qui appareo; sed fortasse ego non recte interpretor. Videamus ex iis quae sequuntur: Sicut misit me vivus Pater, etc.; ille dicit de Divinitate, ego de humanitate. Videamus quis sit pravus interpres: Sicut misit me vivus Pater; haereticus dicit Divinitatem missam, et se profiteri Deum Verbum dicere: Sicut misit me vivus Pater. Ergo et hoc secundum ipsos ita erit intelligendum: Ego Deus Verbum vivo per Patrem. Post hoc enim videtur dictum: Et qui manducat me, et ille vivit. Quem ergo manducamus? Divinitatem, an carnem?
Dicam etiam illius scandali verba. De sua carne Dominus Christus cum illis disserebat: Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Verborum sublimitatem qui audierant, non tulerunt; putabant enim ex inscitia illum anthropophagiam suadere.
And after other things. But let us come to the point. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. Remember that we are speaking about the flesh: As the living Father sent me—me, who appear; but perhaps I interpret incorrectly. Let us see from what follows: As the living Father sent me, etc.; he speaks of the Divinity, I of the humanity. Let us see who is the corrupt interpreter: As the living Father sent me; the heretic says that the Divinity was sent, and claims to profess that he is speaking of God the Word: As the living Father sent me. Therefore this too, according to them, must be understood thus: I, God the Word, live through the Father. For after this it seems to have been said: And he who eats me, he also lives. Whom, then, do we eat? The Divinity, or the flesh?
I shall also state the words of that scandal. The Lord Christ was discoursing with them about his own flesh: Unless, he said, you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Those who heard did not endure the sublimity of the words; for in their ignorance they thought he was urging cannibalism.
SERMO X.
a Velut in Macedonianos, revera in catholicos verae incarnationis defensores.
Adhuc vobis multa habeo dicere, etc. (Joan. xvi, 12). Et post aliquanta: Communes sunt Trinitatis operationes, et tantum substantiis dividendae. Quare Unigeniti glorificatio, aliquando quidem Patri deputatur, sicut est illud: Pater est meus, qui me glorificat (Joan. vii, 54); aliquando vero Spiritui deputatur, ait enim: Spiritus veritatis, qui me glorificabit (Joan. xvi, 13); nonnunquam Christi potentiae assignatur, sicut scriptum est: Exeuntes praedicabant verbum ubique, Domino cooperante, et verbum confirmante, consequentibus eos signis (Marc. xvi, 16).
Atque cooperationis hujus evidens est argumentum: Filius est factus homo; Paler in throno collocavit; Spiritus signis honestavit; inhabitavit Filius in corpore; commendavit baptizatum Pater; formavit in Virgine Spiritus.
HOMILY X.
a As if against the Macedonians, but truly against the catholics, the defenders of the true incarnation.
I still have many things to say to you, etc. (John 16:12). And after some things: The operations of the Trinity are common, and are to be divided only by their substances. Wherefore the glorification of the Only-begotten is sometimes ascribed to the Father, as in that passage: It is my Father who glorifies me (John 7:54); sometimes truly it is ascribed to the Spirit, for he says: The Spirit of truth, who will glorify me (John 16:13); sometimes it is assigned to the power of Christ, as it is written: Going forth, they preached the word everywhere, with the Lord cooperating and confirming the word by the signs that followed them (Mark 16:16).
And of this cooperation there is clear proof: the Son became man; the Father placed him on the throne; the Spirit honored him with signs; the Son dwelt in the body; the Father commended him when baptized; the Spirit formed him in the Virgin.
SERMO XI.
Adversus Arianos, in haec verba Isaiae: Puer datus est nobis, et filius natus est nobis (Is. ix, 6).
Magnum sane tanti doni sacramentum; hic enim qui videtur infans, hic qui recens apparet; hic qui fasciis corporalibus eget, hic qui secundum visibilem essentiam recenter est editus, Filius est, ut Scriptura docet, oeternus, Filius universorum opifex, Filius qui suae opis fasciis dissolubilem creaturae naturam astringit.
Infans enim Deus est suae potestatis; tantum abest, Arie, ut Deus Verbum sit sub Dei potestate. Novimus ergo humanitatem infantis ac divinitatem: filiationis unitatem servamus in Deitatis bumanitatisque natura.
Hoc autem dico, ut noveritis quam super excellens et summa quaedam Deitatis conjunctio existebat, etiam in infante ipso, cum Dominica caro conspiceretur; erat enim ipse, et infans, et infantis ipsius Dominus. Laudastis vocem, sed nolite eam parum curiose laudare; dixi enim quod idem erat infans et habitator infantis.
HOMILY XI.
Against the Arians, on these words of Isaiah: A child is given to us, and a son is born to us (Is. 9:6).
Great indeed is the sacrament of so great a gift; for this one who is seen as an infant, this one who appears newborn; this one who needs bodily swaddling clothes, this one who according to his visible essence has recently been brought forth, is the Son, as the Scripture teaches, eternal, the Son the craftsman of all things, the Son who by the swaddling clothes of his own power binds together the dissoluble nature of creation.
For the infant is God of his own power; so far is it, Arius, from being the case that God the Word is under the power of God. We therefore know the humanity of the infant and his divinity: we preserve the unity of sonship in the nature of Deity and humanity.
But I say this so that you may know how exceedingly surpassing and, as it were, supreme a certain conjunction of Deity existed even in the infant himself, when the Lord's flesh was beheld; for he himself was both the infant and the Lord of the infant himself. You have praised the utterance, but do not praise it with too little care; for I said that the same one was both the infant and the inhabitant of the infant.
Ut ergo demonstretur ipsis quoque magis quis hic est ab illis adoratus, et ad quem illos duxerit Spiritus sancti gratia; nempe non ad simplicem vulgo conspectum infantem, sed ad corpus quoddam ineffabiliter Deo conjunctum.
Quis nunc benignitatis tam immensum aspiciat pelagus, naturam cum suo opifice dominantem, et conjunctam homini Divinitatem, nihil sine hoc jubentem, nullum absque isto judicantem: cum eo vivorum curam in summa providentia gerentem, et cum ipso mortuos suscitantem.
EPISTOLA a TERTIA SYNODICA S. CYRILLI
Alexandrini episcopi directa Nestorio Constantinopolitanae urbis episcopo, duodecim continens anathematismi capitula.
Religioso et Deo amabili consacerdoti Nestorio Cyrillus, et quae convenit apud Alexandriam synodus ex AEgyptia dioecesi, in Domino salutem.
Cum Salvator noster aperte pronuntiet: Qui diligit patrem aut matrem super me, non est me dignus; et qui diligit filium aut filiam super me, non est me dignus (Matth. x, 37); quid nos patiemur, qui deposcimur a tua religione ut te super Christum Salvatorem omnium diligamus? Quid enim nobis in die judicii proderit, aut quam satisfactionem reperire poterimus, ita diuturnum silentium de prolatis a te contra eum blasphemiis continentes?
So then, that it may be shown to them as well, more clearly, who this is who was adored by them, and to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit led them—namely, not to an infant plainly seen by the crowd, but to a certain body ineffably united to God.
Who now could behold so immense a sea of kindness—nature reigning together with its own Maker, and the Godhead conjoined to the man, commanding nothing without him, judging no one apart from him: with him exercising care for the living in the highest providence, and with him raising the dead.
EPISTLE, the Third Synodical Letter of St. Cyril
of the bishop of Alexandria, sent to Nestorius, bishop of the city of Constantinople, containing twelve chapters of anathema.
To the religious and God-beloved fellow priest Nestorius, Cyril, and the synod assembled at Alexandria from the Egyptian diocese, greeting in the Lord.
Since our Savior openly declares: He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Mt 10:37); what shall we suffer, who are demanded by your religiousness to love you more than Christ the Savior of all? For what will it profit us on the day of judgment, or what satisfaction will we be able to find, keeping so long a silence concerning the blasphemies uttered by you against him?
Et si quidem te tantummodo laederes, docens ista vel sentiens, sollicitudo nobis minor exisleret: cum vero totam scandalizaveris Ecclesiam, et fermentum insolitae pravitatis et novae haeresis miscueris in populis, nec tantum ibidem positis, sed ubique consistentibus (nam tuarum expositionum libri per cuncta vulgati sunt), quae super nostro silentio ratio ultra, vel excusationis sermo sufficiat? aut quomodo non necesse sit meminisse Christi Domini sic dicentis: Non putetis quod venerim pacem mittere in terram, sed gladium; veni enim separare hominem adversus patrem suum, et filiam adversus matrem suam (Matth. x, 34). Nam cum laeditur fides, parentum reverentia, velat inutilis et periculosa, despicitur, et amor erga filios fratresque vitatur. Ad postremum etiam post ipsam vitam [B. super ipsam vitam mors potius] a piis viris eligitur, ut meliorem resurrectionem, sicut scriptum est, consequantur (Heb. xi, 35).
And if you were harming only yourself by teaching or holding these things, our concern would be less: but since you have scandalized the whole Church, and have mixed the leaven of an unusual depravity and a new heresy among the peoples, not only those situated there but those dwelling everywhere (for the books of your expositions have been spread through all places), what reason for our silence can suffice any longer, or what word of excuse? Or how is it not necessary to remember Christ the Lord speaking thus: Do not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth, but a sword; for I have come to separate a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother (Matt. 10:34). For when the faith is injured, reverence for parents is despised as useless and dangerous, and love toward children and brothers is shunned. Finally, even after this life [B: rather death above this life], it is chosen by pious men, that they may obtain a better resurrection, as it is written (Heb. 11:35).
Ecce itaque te simul, cum sancta synodo, quae apud amplam urbem Romam congregata est, praesidente sanctissimo et venerandissimo fratre et consacerdote nostro Coelestino episcopo, his scriptis jam tertio convenimus, consilium dantes ut a pravis abstineas distortisque dogmatibus, quae et sentire cognosceris et docere, recipias vero fidem rectam Ecclesiis per beatissimos apostolos et evangelistas ab initio traditam, qui et oculis inspexerunt, et ministri Verbi fuisse monstrantur.
Quod si hoc religio tua facere distulerit, juxta dilationem litteris praefinitam sanctissimi et venerandissimi consacerdotis nostri Romanae praesulis Ecclesiae Coelestini, scias te nullam sortem habere uobiscum, nec locum aut colloquium cum Dei sacerdotibus et episcopis obtinere; non enim est fas contemnere nos Ecclesias ita turbatas et scandalizatos populos, fidemque rectissimam violatam, dissipatum quin etiam gregem, quem custodire debueras, siquidem juxta nos amator recti dogmatis exstitisses, sancto rum Patrum vestigia pia consectans.
Behold, therefore, we have now for the third time convened you in writing together with the holy synod gathered at the great city of Rome, under the presidency of our most holy and most venerable brother and fellow-priest Coelestinus the bishop, giving counsel that you abstain from depraved and distorted doctrines, which you are known both to hold and to teach, and that you receive the right faith handed down to the Churches from the beginning through the most blessed apostles and evangelists, who both saw with their eyes and are shown to have been ministers of the Word.
But if your religion shall have deferred to do this, according to the delay fixed in the letters of our most holy and most venerable fellow-priest Coelestinus, bishop of the Roman Church, know that you have no portion with us, nor do you obtain a place or converse with God's priests and bishops; for it is not right that we should be despised, with the Churches so troubled and the peoples scandalized, and the most right faith violated, and even the flock scattered which you ought to have guarded, if indeed according to us you had shown yourself a lover of right doctrine, piously following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers.
Omnes itaque quos propter fidem tua religio a communione removit, aut ab ordine suo deposuit, laicos et clericos, in nostra communione recipimus; non enim justum est eos tuis decretis opprimi, qui noverunt recta sentire, qui etiam bene facientes tibi prudentissime restiterunt: hoc idem namque in epistola quam misisti ad praesulem amplae Romae sanctum et coepiscopum nostrum Coelestinum, significare curasti.
Non autem sufficit tuae religioni solummodo fidei symbolum confiteri, quod expositum est per idem tempus, sancti Spiritus largitate, a venerando et magno concilio apud Nicaeam congregato; hoc enim nec intellexisti, a nec recte interpretatus es, perversae licet sono vocis eadem verba protuleris. Sed [Baluz. add. nec] consequens est ut jurejurando fatearis quod anathematizes quidem tua polluta et profana dogmata; sentias autem et doceas quoe nos universi, sive per Orientem, sive per Occidentem, episcopi et magistri, praesulesque populorum credi nus et docemus.
Therefore all those whom your religion has removed from communion on account of the faith, or has deposed from their order, both laymen and clerics, we receive into our communion; for it is not just that those be oppressed by your decrees who have known how to think rightly, who also, doing well, have most prudently resisted you: for you took care to signify this same thing in the letter which you sent to the prelate of great Rome, our holy fellow-bishop Celestine.
But it is not sufficient for your religion merely to confess the symbol of faith which was set forth at that same time, by the bounty of the Holy Spirit, by the venerable and great council gathered at Nicaea; for you have neither understood this, nor rightly interpreted it, although you uttered the same words with the sound of a perverse voice. But it follows that you should confess by oath that you indeed anathematize your own polluted and profane dogmas; but that you should hold and teach what we all, whether throughout the East or throughout the West, bishops and teachers and prelates of the peoples, believe and teach.
Epistolis autem ab Alexandrina tuae religioni directis Ecclesia consensum praebuit, tam ea quae apud urbem Romam convenit sancta synodus, quam etiam nos omnes, velut recte irreprehensibiliterque conscriptis. Subdidimus autem his nostris litteris quae te sentire oporteat et docere, et a quibus abstinere conveniat.
Haec est enim fides apostolicae et catholicae Ecclesiae, cui cuncti consentiunt orthodoxi per Orientem Occidentemque pontifices: Credimus in unum Dominum, Patrem omnipotentem, omnium visibilium et invisibilium conditorem, Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei, natum de Patre unigenitum, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, lumen ex lumine, Deum verum ex Deo vero, natum, non factum, Patri, hoc est, unius cum Patre substantiae. per quem omnia facta sunt in coelo et in terra; qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est, et homo factus est, passus est, et resurgens tertia die ascendit in coelos, unde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in Spiritum sanctum. Eos autem qui dicunt: Erat tempus quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur non erat, et quia ex nullis exstantibus factus est, aut ex alia substantia vel essentia, dicentes esse aut convertibilem et commutabilem Filium Dei; anathematizat catholica et apostolica Ecclesia.
But the Church has given its assent to the letters sent from Alexandria to your religion, both the holy synod that assembled in the city of Rome and also all of us, as to writings correctly and blamelessly composed. Moreover, we have subjoined to this our letter the things which you ought to believe and teach, and the things from which it is fitting to abstain.
For this is the faith of the apostolic and catholic Church, to which all orthodox bishops throughout the East and the West consent: We believe in one Lord, the Father almighty, creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only-begotten, born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, born, not made, of one substance with the Father, that is, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made in heaven and on earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and became man, suffered, and rising on the third day ascended into heaven, whence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: There was a time when he was not, and before he was born he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, or who say that the Son of God is convertible and changeable—the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.
Sequentes itaque per omnia sanctorum Patrum confessiones quas, loquente in eis sancto Spiritu, protulerunt, et intentioni quae est in eorum intellectibus aequis vestigiis inhaerentes, atque iter ambulantes regium, profitemur quod ipse unigenitus Dei Verbum Deus, natus ex ipsa Patris essentia, de Deo vero Deus verus, lumen de lumine, per quem omnia facta sunt, sive in coelis, sive in terra, salutis nostrae causa descendens, ad exinanitionem sese dignatus est inclinare, incarnatus autem et homo factus, id est, carnem de Virgine sancta suscipiens, eamque sibi propriam faciens, nativitatem nostram ex vulva sustinuit, homo de muliere procedens, nec quod erat abjiciens; nam licet factus sit in assumptione carnis et sanguinis, tamen etiam sic quod erat, Deus natura scilicet et veritate, perstitit.
Nec carnem itaque dicimus in naturam Deitatis esse conversam, nec in substantiam carnis ineffabilem Dei Verbi essentiam commutatam: inconvertibilis etenim est, et incommutabilis, idemque ipse, juxta Scripturas, jugiter permanens (Psal. ci, 28). Visus est autem et parvulus, sed potius [Baluz. positus] adhuc in cunabulis, et in sinibus genitricis Virginis constitutus, universam creaturam replebat ut Deus, genitori suo indivisus existens: quod divinum est enim, sine quantitate et sine mole cognoscitur, nec ullis terminis continetur.
Following therefore in all things the confessions of the holy Fathers, which they brought forth when the Holy Spirit spoke in them, and adhering with even steps to the intention that is in their understandings, and walking the kingly road, we profess that the only-begotten Word of God, God himself, born from the very essence of the Father, true God from true God, light from light, through whom all things were made, whether in heaven or on earth, descending for the sake of our salvation, deigned to lower himself to emptiness, and being incarnate and made man, that is, taking flesh from the holy Virgin and making it his own, he endured our birth from the womb, coming forth as man from a woman, nor did he cast aside what he was; for although he was made in the assumption of flesh and blood, yet even so he remained what he was, namely God in nature and in truth.
Nor do we say that the flesh was converted into the nature of the Godhead, nor that the ineffable essence of the Word of God was changed into the substance of flesh: for it is inconvertible and immutable, and the same himself, according to the Scriptures, continually remaining. He was seen even as a little child, but rather while still in the cradle, and established in the bosom of his Virgin mother, he was filling the whole creation as God, existing indivisible from his begetter: for what is divine is known without quantity and without bulk, nor is it contained by any boundaries.
Unitum ergo carni Verbum secundum subsistentiam confitentes, unum adoramus Filium, Dominum Jesum Christum, non a seorsum ponentes et determinantes hominem et Deum, velut invicem sota [Baluz. sibi] dignitatis et auctoritatis unitate conjunctos; haec enim novitas vocis est, et aliud nihil. Nec item Christum specialiter nominantes Deum Verbum, quod ex Deo est; nec alterum similiter Christum specialiter, qui de muliere natus est, sed unum solummodo Christum Dei Patris Verbum, cum propria carne cognoscimus. Tunc enim ut homo [Baluz. om. ut homo], juxta nos, unctus est, quamvis Spiritum dignis ipse contulerit, sed non ad mensuram (Joan. iii, 33), sicut beatus evangelista Joannes asseruit.
Sed nec illud dicimus, quod Dei Verbum veluti in homine communi, qui de sancta Virgine natus est, habitarit, ne Deum homo Christus habitatorem possidere credatur. Quamvis enim Verbum habitaverit in nobis (Joan. i, 14), et dictum sit, in Christo habitare omnem plenitudinem Deitatis corporaliter (Col. ii, 9); haud tamen [Ba luz. attamen] intelligimus, quod caro factus, [Baluz. add. non] sicut in sanctis habitare dicatur, nec talem in ipso habitationem factam definire tentavimus; sed unitus juxta naturam, nec in carnem penitus commutatus, talem sibi fecit habitationem, qualem et anima hominis habere creditur ad proprium corpus.
Confessing therefore that the Word is united to the flesh according to subsistence, we adore one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, not setting apart and defining separately a man and a God, as though joined by a unity of equal dignity and authority; for this is a novelty of speech, and nothing else. Nor again do we specially name as Christ God the Word, who is from God; nor similarly another Christ specifically, who was born of a woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word of God the Father, together with his own flesh. For then, as a man, according to us, he was anointed, although he himself conferred the Spirit upon the worthy, but not by measure, as the blessed evangelist John asserted.
But neither do we say that the Word of God dwelt as it were in a common man, who was born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ the man be believed to possess God as an indweller. For although the Word dwelt in us, and it was said that in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; yet we do not understand that, having been made flesh, he is said to dwell as in the saints, nor have we attempted to define that such an indwelling was made in him; but united according to nature, and not entirely changed into flesh, he made for himself such an indwelling as the soul of a man is believed to have in relation to its own body.
Unus igitur est Christus, Filius et Dominus, non velut conjunctionem quamlibet, quae in unitate dignitatis et auctoritatis, homine habente ad Deum; non enim potest unire naturas sola dignitatis aequalitas, namque Petrus et Joannes aequalis sunt in alterutrum dignitatis, propter quod et apostoli et sancti discipuli esse monstrantur; verumtamen uterque non unus est. Nec juxta collationem vel connexionem modum conjunctionis advertimus, hoc enim ad unitatem non sufficit naturalem; nec secundum participationis effectum, sicut nos etiam adhaerentes Domino unus cum ipso spiritus sumus (I Cor. vi, 17).
Immo potius conjunctionis nomen evitamus, tamquam non existens idoneum quod significet unitatis arcanum.
l4.
One therefore is Christ, the Son and Lord, not as any sort of conjunction in a unity of dignity and authority, with the man having it in relation to God; for a mere equality of dignity cannot unite natures, for Peter and John are of equal dignity with each other, on which account they are shown to be both apostles and holy disciples; yet the two are not one. Nor do we understand the mode of conjunction according to a comparison or connection, for this does not suffice for a natural unity; nor according to the effect of participation, as we also, cleaving to the Lord, are one spirit with him (1 Cor. 6:17).
Rather, we avoid the very name of conjunction, as not being suitable to signify the mystery of unity.
e Sed neque Deum aut Dominum Christi Verbum Dei Patris asserimus, ne iterum manifestius in duos dividamus unum Christum Filium et Dominum, et in crimen sacrilegii recidamus, Deum illum sui ipsius facientes et Dominum: unitus quippe, sicut superius diximus, Deus Verbum carni secundum substantiam, Deus quidem est omnium et dominator universitatis; verumtamen nec servus est sibi ipsi, nec Dominus, quia ineptum est, vel potius impium, hoc sentire, vel dicere; quamvis enim Deum suum Patrem dixerit, cum Deus sit etiam ipse natura, et de illius essentia; tamen nullatenus ignoramus quod manens Deus homo quoque factus sit, qui sub Deo juxta debitam legem naturae humanitatis exisleret; ipse vero sibi quomodo vel Deus poterit esse vel dominus? Ergo sicut homo, quantum decenter exinanitionis mensurae congruit, sub Deo se nobiscum esse disseruit. Hoc etiam modo sub lege factus est (Gal. iv, 4), quamvis ipse promulgaverit legem, et legislator ut Deus exstiterit.
But neither do we assert that the Word of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ, lest we again more manifestly divide the one Christ, Son and Lord, into two, and fall into the charge of sacrilege, making him God and Lord of himself; for, as we said above, the Word of God, being united to the flesh according to substance, is indeed God of all and Lord of the universe; yet he is neither servant to himself nor Lord to himself, because it is absurd, or rather impious, to think or say this. For although he called his Father his God, since he is himself also God by nature and of his essence, nevertheless we in no way ignore that he who remained God also became man, who would be under God according to the due law of the nature of humanity; but how could he himself be either God or Lord to himself? Therefore, as man, insofar as it befits the measure of his emptying, he declared himself to be under God with us. In this way too he was made under the law, although he himself promulgated the law and existed as lawgiver, as God.
Cavemus autem de Christo dicere: Propter assumentem veneror assumptum, et propter invisibilem adoro visibilem. Horrendum vero super hoc etiam illud adjicere: Is qui susceptus est, cum eo qui suscepit, connuncupatur Deus. Qui enim haec dicit, dividit iterum in duos Christos eum qui unus est, hominem seorsum in parte, et Deum similiter in parte constituens; evidenter enim denegat unitatem, secundum quam non alter cum altero adoratur, aut connuncupatur Deus, sed unus intelligitur Christus Jesus Filius Dei unigenitus, una servitute cum propria carne venerandus.
Confitemur etiam quod idem ipse qui ex Deo Patre Filius natus est unigenitus Deus, licet juxta naturam suam expers passionis exstiterit, pro nobis tamen, secundum Scripturas, carne perpessus sit (I Petr. iv, 1), et erat in crucifixo corpore propriae carnis impassibiliter ad se referens passiones: Gratia vero Dei pro omnibus gustavit mortem (Heb. ii, 9), tradens ei proprium corpus, quamvis naturaliter ipse vita sit, et resurrectio mortuorum. Nam ut mortem ineffabili potentia proculcaret, ac primus in sua carne primogenitus ex mortuis fieret et primitiae dormientium, [Baluz. add. viamque faceret] humanae naturae ad incorruptionis recursum, gratia Dei, ut supra dictum est, pro omnibus gustavit mortem (Ibid.), et tertio die resurgens spoliavit infernum.
But let us beware of saying of Christ: "Because of the one who assumed, I venerate the one assumed; and because of the invisible one, I adore the visible one." It is dreadful, moreover, to add even this to that: "He who was received is named God together with him who received him." For whoever says these things divides again into two Christs the one who is one, setting the man separately on one side and God likewise on another side; for he plainly denies the unity according to which the one is not adored together with the other, nor named God together with him, but Christ Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, is understood as one, to be venerated with one service together with his own flesh.
We also confess that the same one who was born as only-begotten God from God the Father, although according to his own nature he existed without suffering, nevertheless for us, according to the Scriptures, suffered in the flesh, and was in the crucified body of his own flesh, impassibly referring the sufferings to himself: for by the grace of God he tasted death for all, handing over to it his own body, although by nature he himself is life and the resurrection of the dead. For in order to trample down death by his ineffable power, and to become the firstborn from the dead in his own flesh and the firstfruits of those who sleep, and to make a way for human nature to return to incorruption, by the grace of God, as was said above, he tasted death for all, and rising again on the third day he despoiled hell.
Idcirco quamvis dicatur quod per hominem facta sit resurrectio mortuorum (I Cor. xv, 21), tamen intelligimus hominem factum Verbum, quod ex Deo est, et per ipsum mortis imperium fuisse destructum (Heb. ii, 14). Veniet autem temporibus praefinitis, sicut est unus Filius et Dominus in gloria Patris, ut judicet orbem terrarum in aequitate (Act. xvii, 31), sicut Scriptura testatur.
Necessario igitur et haec adjicimus; annuntiantes enim secundum carnem mortem unigeniti Filii Dei, id est, Jesu Christi, et resurrectionem ejus, et in coelis ascensionem pariter confitentes, incruentam celebramus in Ecclesiis sacrificii servitutem; sic etiam ad mysticas benedictiones accedimus, et sanctificamur participes corporis et pretiosi sanguinis Christi Omnium nostrum Redemptoris, effecti, non ut communem carnem recipientes, quod absit, nec ut viri sanctificati, et Verbo conjuncti secundum dignitatis unitatem, aut sicut divinam possidentis habitationem, sed ut vere vivificatricem, et ipsius Verbi Dei [Baluz. om. Dei] propriam factam; vita enim naturaliter ut Deus existens, quia propriae carni unitus est, vivificatricem eam esse professus est. Et ideo quamvis dicat ad nos [Baluz. add. veniens]: Amen amen dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem (Joan.
Therefore, although it is said that the resurrection of the dead came about through a man (1 Cor. 15:21), nevertheless we understand that the Word, who is from God, became man, and that through him the dominion of death was destroyed (Heb. 2:14). But he will come at the appointed times, as the one Son and Lord in the glory of the Father, to judge the world in equity (Acts 17:31), as the Scripture testifies.
Necessarily, therefore, we add these things as well; for proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection and likewise his ascension into heaven, we celebrate in the Churches the service of the unbloody sacrifice; thus too we approach the mystical blessings and are sanctified, having been made partakers of the body and precious blood of Christ, the Redeemer of us all—not as receiving common flesh, which be far from us, nor as men sanctified and joined to the Word according to a unity of dignity, or as one possessing a divine indwelling, but as flesh truly life-giving and made the very own of the Word of God himself; for existing naturally as God, since he is united to his own flesh, he has declared it to be life-giving. And therefore, although he says to us: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood (John
vi, 53), etc., non tamen eam ut unius hominis ex nobis aestimare debemus; quomodo enim juxta naturam suam vivificatrix esse caro hominis poterit? Sed ut vere propriam ejus factam, qui propter nos Filius hominis et factus est et vocatus.
Eas autem voces, quas Salvator noster in Evangeliis protulit, non in duabus subsistentiis aut personis omnino partimur; non enim duplex est unus Christus et solus, quamvis ex duabus diversisque rebus ad unitatem cognoscatur individuam convenisse; sicut homo quoque ex anima constans et corpore, non duplex potius, sed unus est ex utroque: humanas ergo et divinas insuper voces ab uno Christo dictas, animadvertentes recte sentimus, cura enim Deo dignissime loquitur de se ipso: Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. xiv, 9); et: Ego et Pater unum su- Mus (Joan. x, 30). Divinam ejus intelligimus, ineffabilemque naturam, secundum quam unum est cum Patre suo, propter unam eamdemque substantiam, imago et character splendorque gloriae ejus existens (Heb. i, 3). Cum vero humanae naturae mensuram nullatenus inhonorans Judaeos alloquitur: Nunc me quaeritis occidere hominem, qui veritatem vobis locutus sum (Joan. vii, 1); non minus eum qui in similitudine et aequalitate [Baluz. aequitate] Patris est, Deum Verbum etiam in mensuris humanitatis ejus agnoscimus.
Nevertheless we ought not to reckon it as the flesh of one man among us; for how could the flesh of a man be life-giving according to its own nature? But as truly made his own, who for our sake both became and was called the Son of Man.
But those utterances which our Savior brought forth in the Gospels we do not at all divide between two subsistences or persons; for the one and only Christ is not twofold, although he is known to have come together into an indivisible unity from two different things; just as a man also, consisting of soul and body, is not twofold but one from both. Therefore, observing that both human and, beyond these, divine utterances were spoken by the one Christ, we rightly judge; for with care most worthy of God he speaks of himself: He who sees me sees also the Father (John 14:9); and: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). We understand these as his divine and ineffable nature, according to which he is one with his Father because of one and the same substance, existing as the image and character and splendor of his glory (Heb. 1:3). But when, in no way dishonoring the measure of human nature, he addresses the Jews: Now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you (John 7:1); we recognize him no less—him who is in the likeness and equality of the Father—as God the Word even within the measures of his humanity.
Si autem necessario creditur quod natura Deus existens factus est caro, immo potius homo animatus anima rationali, quae causa est ut in eis quilibet vocibus erubescat, si eas homine dignas effatus est? Quod si sermones homini congruentes abjiciat, juxta nos hominem fieri quis coegit? Cum vero se propter nos ad exinanitionem spontaneam misericorditer inclinarit, quam ob causam dignos exinanitione sermones effugerit? Uni igitur personae cunctas ejus in Evangelio voces ascribimus, [Baluz. add. uni] subsistentiae Verbi scilicet incarnati, quia unus est Dominus Jesus Christus, ut scriptum est.
Appellatum vero apostolum et pontificem confessionis nostrae (Hebr. iii, 2), tamquam sacrificantem Deo et Patri fidei nostrae confessionem, quae a nobis ipsi et per ipsum Deo et Patri incessanter offertur. Iterum eum dicimus, qui ex Deo est secundum naturam Filius unigenitus, nec homini praeter eum alteri sacerdotii nomen et officium deputamus: Factus est enim mediator Dei et hominum (I Tim. ii, 5), et reconciliator ad pacem, semetipsum Deo et Patri pro nobis offerens in odorem suavitatis (Eph. ii, ); ideoque dicebat: Sacrificium et oblationem notuisti; holocausta et pro peccato non tibi placuerunt; corpus autem perfecisti mihi. Tunc dixi: Ecce venio, in capite libri scriptum est de me, ut faciam, Deus, voluntatem tuam (Heb. x, 5).
If, however, it is necessarily believed that he who exists as God by nature was made flesh—or rather, a man animated by a rational soul—what cause is there for anyone to blush at these words, if he has declared them worthy of a man? But if he rejects words that befit a man, who compelled him to become a man according to us? Since, then, in his mercy he freely inclined himself to self-emptying for our sake, for what reason should he shun words worthy of that self-emptying? Therefore we ascribe all his words in the Gospel to one person—that is, to the one subsistence of the Word incarnate—because there is one Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written.
He is called apostle and high priest of our confession, as one who offers to God and the Father the confession of our faith, which is ceaselessly offered by us to him and through him to God and the Father. Again we say that he who is the only-begotten Son of God by nature is he, and we assign the name and office of priesthood to no other man besides him; for he was made mediator of God and men, and reconciler unto peace, offering himself to God and the Father for us as a sweet fragrance; and therefore he said: Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; burnt offerings and offerings for sin did not please you; but a body you have prepared for me. Then I said: Behold, I come; in the head of the book it is written of me, that I may do your will, O God.
Obtulit enim proprium corpus, non pro se, sed pro nobis, in odorem suavitatis: nam pro se vel oblatione vel sacrificiis non indiget, ab omni peccato liber, ut Deus, existens. Quod si omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei (Rom. iii, 23), secundum hoc quod sumus ad mutabilitatis excessum proniores effecti, et peccatis aegrolavit humana natura, ipse vero non ita, ideoque nos gloria ejus egemus; cui [Baluz. cur] erit ultra jam dubium, quod Agnus verus propter nos et pro nobis sit immolatus? Qui dicit autem, quod semetipsum tam pro se quam pro nobis obtulerit, nullatenus impietatis crimen effugiat, cum nihil prorsus iste deliquerit, nec ullum fecerit omnino peccatum. Qua igitur egeret oblatione, nullo suo exstante facinore, pro quo, si esset, satis admodum convenienter offerret?
De Spiritu quoque cum dicit: Ille me glorificabit (Joan.
For he offered his own body, not for himself, but for us, as a sweet odor; for he has no need of an offering or sacrifices for himself, being free from every sin, as God. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), inasmuch as we have been made more prone to the excess of mutability, and human nature has sickened with sins, while he is not so, and therefore we need his glory—for whom will it any longer be doubtful that the true Lamb was sacrificed for us and on our behalf? But whoever says that he offered himself both for himself and for us, in no way escapes the charge of impiety, since he himself committed nothing at all, nor did he commit any sin whatsoever. By what offering, then, would he be in need, when no crime of his own exists for which, if it existed, he would quite fittingly offer?
Concerning the Spirit too, when he says: He will glorify me (John
xvi, 14), hoc rectissime sentientes unum Christum et Filium, non velut alterius egentem gloria, confitemur a Spiritu sancto gloriam consecutum, quia Spiritus ejus nec melior ipso, nec superior est; sed quia mira opera faciens ad demonstrationem suae Deitatis, virtute proprii Spiritus utebatur, ab ipso glorificari dicitur, quemadmodum si quis de hominibus asseveret quod virtus sua vel disciplina quaelibet unumquemque clarificet: quamvis enim in sua sit subsistentia Spiritus, et ejus intelligatur in persona proprietas, juxta id quod Spiritus est, et non Filius, attamen alienus non est ab illo; nam Spiritus appellatus est veritatis (Joan. xvi, 13), et veritas Christus est (Joan. xiv, 6); unde ab isto similiter, sicot ex deo patre procedit. Denique hic ipse Spiritus etiam per sanctorum manus apostolorum miracula gloriosa perficiens, Dominum glorificat Jesum Christum, postquam ascendit in coelum: nam creditus est Christus natura Deus existens, per suum Spiritum virtutes efficiens, ideoque dicebat: De meo accipiet, et annuntiabit vobis (Joan. xvi, 14). Nequaquam vero participatione alterius idem Spiritus sapiens aut potens dicitur, quia per omnia perfectus est, et nullo prorsus indigens bono; nam paternae virtutis et sapientiae, id est Filii Spiritus creditur, et ideo ipsa re et subsistentia virtus et sapientia comprobatur.
Understanding this most correctly, we confess one Christ and Son, not as though he needed another's glory, that he received glory from the Holy Spirit, because his Spirit is neither better nor greater than he; but because, working wondrous deeds for the demonstration of his own Deity, he used the power of his own Spirit, he is said to be glorified by that same Spirit, just as if someone should assert concerning men that each one is made illustrious by his own virtue or by any discipline whatever. For although the Spirit subsists in his own subsistence, and his property is understood in his person, according as he is Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not alien from him; for he was called the Spirit of truth (John 16:13), and Christ is the truth (John 14:6); whence he proceeds from him similarly, just as he proceeds from God the Father. Finally, this same Spirit also, accomplishing glorious miracles through the hands of the holy apostles, glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ after he ascended into heaven; for Christ was believed to be God by nature, effecting virtues through his own Spirit, and therefore he said: He shall receive of mine, and shall announce it to you (John 16:14). But by no means is the same Spirit called wise or powerful by participation in another, because he is perfect in all things and in need of no good whatsoever; for he is believed to be the Spirit of the Father's virtue and wisdom, that is, of the Son, and therefore in very reality and subsistence he is proved to be virtue and wisdom.
a Igitur quia Deum carni unitum juxta subsistentiam sancta Virgo corporaliter peperit, idcirco eam Dei genitricem esse profitemur; non quod Verbi natura existendi principium de carne sortita sit: Erat enim in principio Verbum, et Deus erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum (Joan. i, 1), et ipse est conditor saecilorum, Patri coaeternus, et universitatis creator; sed quoniam, superius ut diximus, juxta subsistentiam sibimet uniens naturam humanam, nativitatem sustinuerit ex ipsa vulva corpoream: non quod eguerit necessario, propter suam naturam, nativitate ista, quae est in extremis saeculi facta temporibus; sed ut ipsas benediceret substantiae nostrae primitias, et dum eum carni unitum mulier edidisset, illa quae adversus omne genus humanum maledictio fuerat prolata desineret, nec jam morti nostra corpora destinaret; illud quoque, quod dictum est: In tristitia paries filios (Gen. iii, 16), ipse dissolvens, verum esse monstraret quod prophetae voce praedixerat: Absorpta est mors victoria (I Cor. xv, 34). Et iterum: Abstulit Deus omnem lacrymam ab omni facie (Apoc. vii, 17). Propter hanc etenim causam dicimus eum dispensatorie, et ipsas benedixisse nuptias cum in Cana Galileae, cum sanctis vocatus apostolis adesse dignatus est.
Therefore, because the holy Virgin bodily bore God united to flesh according to subsistence, for that reason we profess her to be the Mother of God; not that the nature of the Word received a beginning of existence from the flesh—for In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God (John 1:1), and he is the founder of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and the creator of the universe—but because, as we said above, uniting human nature to himself according to subsistence, he underwent a bodily birth from that very womb; not that he needed this birth, which took place in the last times of the ages, by necessity on account of his own nature, but so that he might bless the very firstfruits of our substance, and so that, when a woman had brought him forth united to flesh, the curse that had been pronounced against the whole human race might cease, and our bodies might no longer be destined for death; and also, dissolving that which was said, In sorrow you shall bear children (Gen. 3:16), he might show to be true what he had foretold by the voice of the prophet: Death is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor. 15:54). And again: God has wiped away every tear from every face (Rev. 7:17). For this reason, then, we say that he, by dispensation, also blessed marriage itself, when in Cana of Galilee he deigned to be present, called with his holy apostles.
Haec sapere sumus edocti a sanctis apostolis et evangelistis, et ab omni Scriptura divinitus inspirata, nec non et a beatis Patrum confessionibus veritate subnixis; his omnibus etiam tuam religionem concordare, et praeter aliquem dolum consentire jam convenit. Quae vero religionem tuam anathematizare necesse est, huic epistolae nostrae subjecta sunt.
I. Si quis non confitetur Deum esse [Baluz. add. veraciter] Emmanuel, et propterea Dei genitricem sanctam Virginem, peperit enim secundum carnem, carnem factum Dei Verbum, anathema sit.
II. Si quis non confitetur carni secundum subsistentiam unitum Dei Patris Verbum, unumque esse Christum cum propria carne, eumdem scilicet Deum simul et hominem, anathema sit.
III. Si quis in uno Christo dividit substantias post unitatem, sola eas connexione conjungens ea quae secundum dignitatem est, vel etiam auctoritatem aut potestatem, ac non potius conventu qui per unitatem factus est naturalem, anathema sit.
We have been taught to hold these things by the holy apostles and evangelists, and by all divinely inspired Scripture, and also by the blessed confessions of the Fathers grounded in truth; and it is fitting that your religion also agree with all these things and consent without any guile. But the things which it is necessary for your religion to anathematize have been appended to this our letter.
I. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God, and that for this reason the holy Virgin is the Mother of God—for she bore according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh—let him be anathema.
II. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father is united to the flesh according to subsistence, and that Christ is one with his own flesh, that is, the same both God and man, let him be anathema.
III. If anyone in the one Christ divides the substances after the union, joining them only by a connection that is according to dignity, or even by authority or power, and not rather by the conjunction that has been made natural through the union, let him be anathema.
IV. Si quis dividit personis duabus vel subsistentiis eas voces quae in apostolicis scriptis continentur et evangelicis, quae de Christo a sanctis dicuntur, vel ab ipso etiam de se ipso, et has quidem velut homini qui praeter Dei Verbum specialiter intelligatur aptaverit; illas autem, tamquam dignas Deo, soli Dei Patris Verbo deputaverit; anathema sit.
V. Si quis audet dicere Christum hominem, id est, Deum ferentem, ac non potius Deum esse veraciter dixerit, tamquam unum Filium per naturam, secundum quod Verbum caro factum est (Joan, i, 14), et communicavit similiter, ut nos, carni et sanguini (Heb. ii, 14), anathema sit.
VI. Si quis dicit Deum vel Dominum Christi esse Dei Patris Verbum, et non magis eumdem ipsum confitetur Deum simul et hominem, propterea quod Verbum caro factum est, secundum Scripturas, anathema sit.
VII. Si quis Jesum hominem operatione Dei Verbi dicit adjutum, seu, et ei unigeniti gloriam, tamquam alteri praeter ipsum existenti, tribui, anathema sit.
IV. If anyone divides between two persons or two subsistences the utterances contained in the apostolic and evangelical writings which are spoken of Christ by the saints, or by himself also concerning himself, and applies some of them as to a man who is understood specially apart from the Word of God, but assigns others, as worthy of God, to the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema.
V. If anyone dares to say that Christ is a man, that is, one who bears God, and does not rather truly say that he is God, as one Son by nature, according to that which the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and shared alike with us in flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), let him be anathema.
VI. If anyone says that the God or Lord of Christ is the Word of God the Father, and does not rather confess that the same one is both God and man, because the Word was made flesh, according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.
VII. If anyone says that Jesus the man was aided by the operation of the Word of God, or that the glory of the Only-begotten was given to him as to another existing besides himself, let him be anathema.
VIII. Si quis audet dicere, assumptum hominem coadorandum Deo Verbo, et conglorificandum, et connuncupandum Deum, tamquam alterum cum altero (nam cum syllaba semper adjecta hoc cogit intelligi), ac non potius una supplicatione veneratur Emmanuel, unamque ei glorificationem dependit, juxta quod Verbum caro factum est, anathema sit.
IX. Si quis unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum glorificatum dicit a Spiritu sancto, tamquam qui aliena virtute per eum usus fuerit, et ab eo acceperit efficaciam contra immundos spiritus, et posse in hominibus divina signa facere, ac non potius proprium ejus Spiritum dicit, per quem divina signa complevit, anathema sit.
X. Pontificem et apostolum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum divina Scriptura (Heb. iii, 2) commemorat: Obtulit autem semetipsum pro nobis in odorem suavitalis Deo et Patri (Eph. v, 2). Si quis ergo pontificem et apostolum nostrum dicit factum, non ipsum Dei Verbum, quando caro factum est, et juxta nos homo, sed velut alterum praeter ipsum specialiter hominem ex muliere: aut si quis dicit et pro se obtulisse semetipsum oblationem, et non potius pro nobis solis, non enim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum omnino nescivit; anathema sit.
VIII. If anyone dares to say that the man assumed was to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and named God together with him, as though one person with another (for the syllable "with" always added forces this to be understood), and does not rather worship Emmanuel with one supplication, and render one glorification to him, according as the Word became flesh, let him be anathema.
IX. If anyone says that our one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Spirit, as though he had used a power not his own through him, and received from him the efficacy against unclean spirits, and the power to perform divine signs among men, and does not rather say that it was his own Spirit, through whom he accomplished the divine signs, let him be anathema.
X. Divine Scripture records that Christ was made high priest and apostle of our confession (Heb. 3:2). But he offered himself for us to God and the Father as a sweet-smelling savor (Eph. 5:2). If anyone, then, says that our high priest and apostle was made such, not the very Word of God himself, when he became flesh and a man like us, but as it were another man besides him, born specifically of a woman: or if anyone says that he also offered himself as an offering for himself, and not rather for us alone—for he had no need of an offering, who knew no sin at all—let him be anathema.
XI. Si quis non confitetur carnem Domini vivificatricem esse, et propriam ipsius Verbi Dei Patris; sed velut alterius praeter ipsum conjuncti eidem per dignitatem, aut quasi divinam habentis habitationem, ac non potius, ut diximus, vivificatricem esse, quia facta est propria Verbi cuncta vivificare praevalentis; anathema sit.
XII. Si quis non confitetur Dei Verbum passum carne, et crucifixum carne, et mortem carne gustasse, factumque primogenitum ex mortuis, secundum quod vita est et vivificator, ut Deus, anathema sit.
EPISTOLA NESTORII episcopi Constantinopolitani, a ad Coelestinum papam.
Didici honestissimum Cyrillum Alexandrinae urbis episcopum, propter libellos contra eum nobis oblatos, exterritum, ac sibi venantem latebras, ad evitandam sacram synodum propter bos ipsos libellos futuram, quasdam alias interea cogitationes excogitare verborum, et amplecti verba, quae sunt, quorum alterum admittit, alterum vero, modo quidem de Evangeliis eximit, modo vero rursus admittit, hoc est,, secundum quamdam, credo, prudentiae nimietatem.
XI. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and is the own flesh of the Word himself, God the Father; but says it is as though of another joined to him by dignity, or as though having a divine indwelling, and not rather, as we have said, that it is life-giving because it has become the own flesh of the Word who prevails to give life to all things: let him be anathema.
XII. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and was made the firstborn from the dead, according as he is life and life-giver, as God: let him be anathema.
THE EPISTLE OF NESTORIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO POPE CELESTINE.
I have learned that the most honorable Cyril, bishop of the city of Alexandria, has been terrified by the little books offered to us against him, and, hunting out hiding places for himself, in order to avoid the sacred synod that is to be held on account of these very little books, is in the meantime devising certain other thoughts of words, and embracing words—of which he admits the one, but the other he sometimes removes from the Gospels, and sometimes again admits, that is, according to a certain excess, I believe, of prudence.
Ego autem et hanc quidem vocem, quae est, nisi secundum Apollinaris et Arii furorem ad confusionem naturarum proferatur, volentibus dicere non resisto; nec tamen ambigo quin haec vox; illi voci cedat, quae est, tam - quam prolatae ab angelis et evangelistis. Et nisi haec ad venerationem tuam scientem dicerem, opus mihi foret longo multoque de hac ipsa causa sermone.
Sed et fine hoc illud quoque omni modo beatitudini tuae notum est, quia si aestimemus duas sectas contrarias sibi stare, et harum altera hanc vocem proferat solam,; altera vero illam solam,; et utraque secta ad suam confessionem alteram trahat, ut, si hoc non impetraverit, periclitetur de Ecclesia cadere: necesse erit, tractandae huic rei deputatum, habentem pro utraque secta curam, mederi periculo utriusque partis, ex voce ab evangelistis tradita, quae utriusque naturae significatrix sit. Harum enim, sicut dixi, assertionem temperat vox illa, quae est, quia et blasphemiam Samosateni removet, quod est dictum de omnium Domino Christo tamquam puro homine; sed et Arii et Apollinaris malitiam fugat.
But I do not resist those who wish to say this word as well—the one that is, "unless" —provided it is not brought forward according to the frenzy of Apollinaris and Arius to confound the natures; nor do I doubt that this word yields to that word which is "as" —as spoken by the angels and the evangelists. And were I not saying these things to your knowledgeable reverence, I would need a long and lengthy discourse on this very matter.
But also at the end, this too is known in every way to your blessedness: that if we consider two sects standing contrary to each other, and one of them brings forward this word alone, while the other brings forward that word alone, and each sect draws the other to its own confession, so that, if it does not obtain this, it risks falling away from the Church: it will be necessary for one appointed to treat this matter, having care for each sect, to heal the danger of both parties from the word handed down by the evangelists, which is the signifier of both natures. For, as I said, that word which is "because" tempers the assertion of these, since it both removes the blasphemy of Samosatenus—which is what was said of the Lord of all, Christ, as though of a mere man—and also puts to flight the malice of Arius and Apollinaris.
e Haec autem ipsa etiam honestissimo Alexandrinorum episcopo scripsi, sicut potest beatitudo tua cognoscere ex exemplaribus quae his meis litteris adjunxi, vel quae ad nos ab eo scripta sunt.
Placuit vero piissimis imperatoribus [Baluz. om. piissimis imperatoribus], Domino adjuvante, etiam synodum inexcusabiliter totius orbis terrarum indicere, propter inquisitionem aliarum rerum ecclesiasticarum. Nam dubitationem verborum non aestimo habituram inquisitionem difficilem, nec impedimento esse futuram a ad tractatum Divinitatis Domini Jesu.
EPISTOLA NESTORII ad Coelestium rescribentis, de Graeco in Latinum translata a Mario Mercatore.
Honorabili et religiosissimo presbytero Coelestio Nestorius in Domino salutem.
Noli aegre ferre, venerabilis, perferens ab his qui ea quae inferuntur facere debent, et praesertim asserentibus veritatem, et refugientibus pollutorum vel contaminatorum communionem: quia et sanctis qui ante nostram aetatem exstiterunt, gratae fuerunt aerumnae, et ipsae quidem temporales erant, veritas autem aeterna. Sic Joannes Baptista de peccato arguens Herodem, et quidem regem existentem, capite condemnatus est: sed non formidavit, Christum enim habebat caput, quod non posset abscindi. Sic Paulus hoc modo quoque et Petrus sunt interfecti. Et quid amplius dici opus est? Ita actum est semper, per diversas tentationes pietate currente.
I have written these very same things also to the most honorable bishop of the Alexandrians, as your blessedness can learn from the copies which I have attached to this letter of mine, or from the writings which have been sent to us by him.
It has pleased the most pious emperors, with the Lord's help, to summon without excuse a synod of the whole world as well, for the investigation of other ecclesiastical matters. For I do not reckon that the questioning of words will have a difficult investigation, nor that it will be an obstacle to the discussion of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.
THE LETTER OF NESTORIUS, writing back to Celestine, translated from Greek into Latin by Marius Mercator.
Nestorius to the honorable and most religious presbyter Celestine, greeting in the Lord.
Do not take it ill, venerable one, that you suffer from those who ought to do the things that are brought upon them, and especially from those who assert the truth and shrink from the communion of the polluted or contaminated: for even the saints who existed before our age found their hardships welcome, and these were indeed temporal, but the truth is eternal. Thus John the Baptist, reproving Herod for sin, and he a king, was condemned to lose his head: but he did not fear, for he had Christ as his head, which could not be cut off. Thus Paul and Peter were also killed in this manner. And what need is there for more to be said? It has always been so, piety running its course through various trials.
Noli igitur a veritate deficiens eam prodere (siquidem epistolae missae episcopis a concilio Occidentis, et ab Alexandrino, multis rescriptis manifestam nobis nostram fecere sententiam), prudentibus scilicet ejusdem orthodoxae professionis; forsitan enim utile aliquid Ecclesiis rectae fidei proveniet, Domino cooperante. Omnem fraternitatem salutamus.
Et alia manu. Incolumis, et forti animo, et plurimum orans pro nobis, doneris nobis, religiosissime frater.
aSERMO XII.
In ecclesia habitus, in qua litteras Coelestini Romani episcopi, Cyrilli Alexandrini denuntiationis accepit vii idus Decembris, consulatu Theodosii xiii et Valentiniani in Augg., post sextum diem quam easdem litteras sumpsit.
Dulcem nobis praecedens doctor mensam charitatis apposuit; non enim habet fraterni amaritudinem odii, non habet venenum livoris, non habet simulatae fraternitatis rubiginem. Sic sunt dulcia charitatis, ut ea et omnium Dominus diligat. Amat charitatem Deus tamquam suae benignitatis ingenitum bonum; et ex hac omnibus gentibus beneficas necessitates instruit; quoniam enim multa erant quae hominum amicitiam dividebant, inseruit Deus necessitates invitis, quae eos in amicitiam mutuam copularent.
Do not, then, failing from the truth, betray it (since the letters sent to the bishops by the council of the West, and by the Alexandrian, and by many rescripts have made our own judgment manifest to us), to the wise, that is, of the same orthodox profession; for perhaps something useful will come to the Churches of the right faith, with the Lord cooperating. We salute all the brotherhood.
And in another hand. May you be granted to us, most religious brother, safe and strong in spirit, and praying very much for us.
SERMON XII.
Delivered in the church in which he received the letters of Celestine, bishop of Rome, and the denunciation of Cyril of Alexandria, on the seventh day before the Ides of December, in the consulship of Theodosius the thirteenth and Valentinian Augustus, on the sixth day after he received those same letters.
The preceding teacher has set before us the sweet table of charity; for it has no bitterness of fraternal hatred, it has no poison of envy, it has no rust of feigned brotherhood. So sweet are the things of charity that even the Lord of all loves them. God loves charity as the inborn good of his own kindness; and from it he furnishes beneficial necessities for all nations; for since there were many things that divided the friendship of men, God implanted necessities, even against their will, which would bind them into mutual friendship.
Alia penes Dalmatas habentur terrae germina; alia penes Gothos rerum indigenarum ubertas; alia Hispanicae terrae fecunditas; altera locuples et opulenta Africae latitudo terrarum; ad hoc, ut quae unicuique desunt, sumat a proximo; et horum, quae non habet inops, aliunde petens, necessitate in amicitia proximi foederetur.
Propterea et omnium Dominus a indutus est nostram naturam, numquam spoliabile scilicet Deitatis vestimentum, inseparabile indumentum divinae substantiae, speculum Domini omnium, quod cum naturae dignitatem propriam perdidisset, tametsi decies millies irascatur audiens Manichoeus, non ad usum naturalem accepit hoc vestimentum, sed in sempiternum, ut ad dextram suae Divinitatis faceret considere; nihil sine isto suo vestimento viventibus donat; non judicat mortuos sine isto; unum esse voluit cum isto Divinitatis suae regnum. In stupore remaneat dentium Paulus Samosatenus, qui nobis Dominicam humanitatem nudam a Deitate delirat, qui solam, praeter Divinitatem, fabulatur hanc quae semper conjuncta est atque connexa; quae eadem ac pariter potest quae Deus: Donavit enim illi Deus nomen quod est super omne nomen (Philip. ii, 9).
Other lands have other produce; other the abundance of native things among the Goths; other the fertility of the land of Spain; other the broad, rich, and opulent expanse of Africa; and for this reason, what each one lacks, it takes from its neighbor; and seeking from elsewhere those things which it does not possess in its poverty, it is bound by necessity in friendship with its neighbor.
Therefore also the Lord of all has put on our nature—that is, the garment of the Godhead, never to be stripped off, the inseparable clothing of the divine substance, the mirror of the Lord of all—which, when it had lost its own dignity of nature, even if the Manichaean rages ten thousand times at hearing it, he received this garment not for natural use, but forever, so as to make it sit at the right hand of his Divinity; without this his garment he gives nothing to the living; he does not judge the dead without it; he willed that his kingdom of Divinity be one with it. Let Paul of Samosata remain in the stupor of his teeth, who raves to us that the Lord's humanity is naked of the Godhead, who babbles that this alone, apart from the Godhead, is what has always been joined and connected; which can the same and equally as God: For God has given him a name which is above every name (Phil. 2:9).
Et ut nemo miretur carnis cum Divinitate audiens regnum, praemonuit per Scripturam Spiritus, quod videtur incredulum, in habitaculo habitantem demonstrans, ex quo et unde honor circa id quod videtur et paret accrevit: Donavit illi, inquit, nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu fiectatur, coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur Deo, quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris (Ibid.). Non depretiavit, inquit, divinam substantiam circa illud quod invisibile est, honor cuncta praecellens, quia demonstratur quemadmodum Filius diligatur a Patre; e unus enim Filius, quod visibile est, et quod invisibile; unus Christus, et iste qui utitur, et id quo utitur, naturae duplices, sed Filius singularis.
Quid sermonem in calumniam vocas? Quid me latenter sagittis aureis jacularis? Quid in me sagittas aureas absconditus mittis? Experiamur nostra certamina, a causas invicem vitae nostrae religionisque praestemus. Pius est imperator; reginae Deum amant: esto in disputando vir fortis, quid prohibet in disputationem venire? quid perturbationes ferinis rugitibus afferre conaris? Novi et ego cum propheta clamare: Paratus sum, et non conturbatus (Psal. cxviii, 60).
And so that no one should wonder when he hears of the kingdom of the flesh together with the Divinity, he forewarned through the Scripture of the Spirit, demonstrating what seems incredible—that the one who dwells in the dwelling place is shown from it, and from that source the honor concerning what is seen and appears has grown: He gave him, it says, a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue should confess to God, that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. He did not, it says, diminish the divine substance in regard to that which is invisible—the honor surpassing all things—because it is shown how the Son is loved by the Father; for there is one Son, both what is visible and what is invisible; one Christ, both he who uses and that which is used, of twofold natures, but the Son is singular.
Why do you call my discourse into calumny? Why do you secretly strike me with golden arrows? Why, hidden, do you shoot golden arrows at me? Let us test our own contests; let us furnish to one another the causes of our life and religion. The emperor is pious; the queens love God: be a strong man in disputing—what prevents you from coming into disputation? Why do you try to bring disturbances with the roarings of beasts? I too know how to cry out with the prophet: I am ready, and I was not troubled.
Docuit me et Moyses non conturbari, siquidem experimentum acceperis prophetae praedicti AEgyptiaca desperatio; nec beatum quondam Flavianum terruisti, cum tyrannico spiritu e epistolas mitteres; nec eum, qui ante hunc inter sanctos numeratur, Meletium perturbasti. Tu quae habes et donas (bonus homo de bono thesauro profert bona [Matth. xii, 35]), set beato Nectario talium munerum tuorum gustum dedisti. Taceo de Joanne, cujus nunc cineres i adorando veneraris invitus, j Me episcopatus cura nulla sollicitat, nec mihi de eo ullus est sermo; donec spiro, sano dogmati adsum.
Sed elegantem et speciatam eorum auferam occasionem. a Non dicit, inquiunt,, id est, genitricem Dei, et hoc est totum quod nostris sensibus ab illis opponitur: Nemo enim, aiunt, rectam fidei gloriam sequens, vocem hanc aliquando declinavit. Multa dogmatum ibi experimenta suppeditant, maxime quidem, quae sunt Apollinaris sectae et Arii, vel Eunomii. Si investiges, unusquisque eorum, id est. Dei genitricem, appellavit Virginem sanctam.
Moses too taught me not to be disturbed, since if you have taken the test of the prophet foretold, the despair of the Egyptians is your experience; nor did you terrify the blessed Flavian of old, when you sent letters in a tyrannical spirit; nor did you disturb Meletius, who before him is numbered among the saints. You have what you have and you give (a good man brings forth good things from a good treasure [Matt. 12:35]), but you gave the blessed Nectarius a taste of such gifts of yours. I am silent about John, whose ashes you now venerate unwillingly by adoring them; no care of the episcopate troubles me, nor have I any word concerning him; as long as I breathe, I stand by sound doctrine.
But I will take away their elegant and specious occasion. They say that he does not say, that is, Mother of God, and this is the whole of what is objected by them against our senses: For no one, they say, following the right glory of the faith, has ever declined this word. Many proofs of doctrines supply evidence there, especially those which belong to the sect of Apollinaris and of Arius, or of Eunomius. If you investigate, each one of them, that is, called the holy Virgin Mother of God.
Tu vero intende, quaeso, in haec quae dicuntur, ut contra haec ipsamque etiam escam quam hamo apponentes loquuntur, defensionem paratissimam habeas. Scis hoc Apollinarem dicentem? Scis hanc vocem, id est,, apud Arium plausus maximos excitare? Scis hanc quoque apud Eunomium frequentari? Etiam, inquis, sed non secundum illos [Baluz.. Filium], ais, hanc vocem enuntio. Laudo inficias tuas, inierim arguo te ipsum in eo quod dicis vocem hanc solam esse veritatis tenacem; sunt enim et dicentes, et tamen, secundum tuam confessionem, eos esse haereticos constat. Sed quoniam illi dicentes, hinc naturae utriusque conficiunt permixtionem, seu temperamentum, ut quae sunt humilia non videantur de carnis dicta esse substantia, nec quae alta sunt de Deo et Domino omnium intelligantur expressa: ideoque damna eos qui dicunt, secundum Apollinaris et Arii sensum, Dei genitricem; et ego una tecum clamo, sed et dico, et addo hominis genitricem, hoc est,; hoc enim haereticus non patitur dicere, propter eam divisionem quae ex distinctione facta est quoque verborum.
But do you, I ask, attend to these things that are said, so that against them and against the very bait which they set on the hook when they speak, you may have a defense fully ready. Do you know that Apollinaris says this? Do you know that this word, that is, [the term], stirs up the greatest applause among Arius? Do you know that it is also frequently used among Eunomius? Yes, you say, but not in their sense, you say, I utter this word. I praise your denials, but I argue that you yourself are implicated in that you say this word alone is tenacious of the truth; for there are those who say it, and yet, according to your own confession, they are established as heretics. But since those who say it infer from this a mixture or blending of both natures, so that the lowly things are not seen to have been spoken of the substance of the flesh, nor are the lofty things understood to have been expressed of God and the Lord of all: therefore condemn those who say, according to the sense of Apollinaris and Arius, that she is the Mother of God; and I cry out together with you, but I also say, and I add, the Mother of the man, that is, [the term]; for the heretic does not endure to say this, on account of that division which has also been made from the distinction of words.
Igitur ut eorum conciones etiam elegantes et sapidulas superemus, dicamus; sciebat namque etiam Paulus talia facere, ne scissurae fierent per aliquam justitiam coloratam, cum gratiam praedicabat, legisque inutilitatem confidenter arguebat; sed Hierosolyma veniens docetur ab apostolis condescendere debere ibidem habitantibus, ut non fierent scissurae in Ecclesia, quod habere videtur speciem pietatis. Quid igitur facit? Suscipit legis observantiam, ita ut et purificaretur, et raderet caput, omnia faciens propter aedificationem Ecclesiae, quod postea hoc ipsum in Ecclesiarum institutione exponens atque doctrina dicebat: Factus sum Judaeis tamquam Judaeus, ut Judaeos lucrifaciam; his qui sub lege sunt, tamquam sub lege essem, cum ipse non essem sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant, lucrifacerem; iis qui sine lege erant, tamquam sine lege essem, cum sine lege Dei non essem, sed in lege essem Christi, ut eos qui sine lege sunt, lucrer: omnia factus sum omnibus, ut omnes lucrifaciam (I Cor. ix, 20).
Therefore, so that we may overcome even their elegant and savory sermons, let us speak. For Paul also knew how to do such things, lest divisions arise through some colored justice, when he preached grace and confidently argued the uselessness of the law; but coming to Jerusalem he was taught by the apostles that he ought to condescend to those dwelling there, so that divisions might not arise in the Church, which has the appearance of piety. What then does he do? He undertakes the observance of the law, so that he even purified himself and shaved his head, doing all things for the edification of the Church, which afterward, expounding this very thing in the institution and doctrine of the Churches, he said: I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to those who are under the law, as if I were under the law, though I myself was not under the law, that I might gain those who were under the law; to those who were without the law, as if I were without the law, though I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ, that I might gain those who are without the law: I became all things to all men, that I might gain all (I Cor. 9:20).
Si igitur et tu non secundum Apollinaris morbum divulgas Mariam, abscondens in persona catholica rabiem Apollinaris, confitere mecum quae apud omnes catholicos dicuntur; hoc autem catholicorum est proprium eorum qui hanc vocem, id est, emittunt, ut et id est, hominis genitricem pronuntient Virginem sanctam.
Genitrix Dei est, non propter nudam humanitate Divinitatem, sed a propter unitum templo Deum Verbum: hominis vero genitrix, id est, propter templum quod consubstantiale est naturaliter Virgini sanctae, quamquam et, id est, Christi genitricem dicere, nihil aliud sit quam communem Divinitatis et humanitatis rem confiteri. Et hoc Paulus docet, qui de una eademque persona clamans: Jesus, inquit, heri et hodie, idem ipse in saecula (Heb. xiii, 8).
Soluta sit interim haec eis et ablata rationis speciem habens occasio, confitere utrumque, appellans sanctam Virginem pariter et: tu vero noli eam tantummodo appellare [Baluz. add. Hoc enim Apollinaris vociferatur], hoc enim Arius praedicat ac veneratur; sed adde vocem pariter catholicorum, quae et genitricis Dei praemuniat intellectum, Virgo sancta, secundum unitatem,, id est, hominis genitrix se cundum parem naturam. Sic et quae apostolorum sunt praedicabis; quae haereticorum prudenter effugies, et maxime quae sunt Samosateni Pauli, atque Photini, quae te scire confingens, prorsus ignoras.
If therefore you too do not proclaim Mary according to the disease of Apollinaris, concealing the madness of Apollinaris under a catholic persona, confess with me the things that are said among all catholics; for this is proper to catholics, those who utter this word—that is, that they declare the holy Virgin to be the mother of a man.
She is the mother of God, not because of the bare Divinity in relation to the humanity, but because of the God Word united to the temple; but she is the mother of a man, that is, because of the temple which is naturally consubstantial with the holy Virgin, although also to call her—that is, the mother of Christ—is nothing other than to confess the common reality of Divinity and humanity. And Paul teaches this, who, crying out concerning one and the same person, says: Jesus, yesterday and today, the same himself forever (Heb. 13:8).
For the meantime let this occasion, which has the appearance of reason, be dissolved and taken away from them; confess both things, calling the holy Virgin both [mother of God and mother of a man]; but do not call her only [mother of a man]—for this is what Apollinaris shouts—for this is what Arius preaches and venerates; but add equally the word of the catholics, which also fortifies the understanding of the mother of God: holy Virgin, according to the unity, that is, mother of a man according to the equal nature. Thus you will also preach the things that are the apostles', and you will prudently flee the things that are the heretics', and especially those of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus, which, pretending to know, you utterly do not know.
Nam Paulus atque Photinus nesciunt Filii Deitatem (vestram autem charitatem oportet haec nosse, ut ab his quae a praedictis dicuntur minime rapiamini); Paulus ac Photinus hominum imprudentissimi nesciunt Filii duas naturas, nesciunt Deum et hominem; dissentiunt autem sibi invicem, et a me Paulus quidem in eo quod dicit Christum hominem solum, et tunc solum initium habere, ex quo de Virgine natus est; ego autem tibi ideo hic resisto, ut Deitatem, quae aeterna est, carni contemporalem non audeas facere.
Quid arguis eum tamquam Pauli doctrinam asserentem, qui quae sunt Pauli subvertit? Quis est hic qui Pauli asserit sensum? Qui dicit Deitatem contemporalem corpori? an qui dicit Deitatis in Filio essentiam ante saecula genitam esse de Patre?
Et haec quidem pessima Samosateni Pauli est secta; Photini vero ad hanc distantia, non quia Deitatem Filio dicit, sed quia dicit Verbum aliud praeter quam quod ultimis temporibus venit, quia didi Verbum praeter templum.
For Paul and Photinus do not know the Deity of the Son (but your charity ought to know these things, so that you may not be carried off by what is said by those aforementioned); Paul and Photinus, most foolish of men, do not know the two natures of the Son, they do not know God and man; but they disagree with each other, and Paul disagrees with me in that he says that Christ is man only, and then has a beginning only from the time when he was born of the Virgin; but I resist him here for this reason, that you may not dare to make the Deity, which is eternal, contemporary with the flesh.
Why do you accuse him as one asserting the doctrine of Paul, who subverts the things that are Paul's? Who is this who asserts the sense of Paul? He who says that the Deity is contemporary with the body? Or he who says that the essence of the Deity in the Son was begotten of the Father before the ages?
And this indeed is the most wicked sect of Paul of Samosata; but the distance of Photinus from this is not because he says that the Deity belongs to the Son, but because he says that the Word is other than that which came in the last times, because he says that the Word is apart from the temple.
Oportet autem manifestius dicere ut liquidius et apertius uniuscujusque morbum sectae possitis agnoscere. Et Paulus et Photinus hanc inter se differentiam habent: unus eorum Christum solum hominem dicit, alter vero dicit quidem Verbum; non autem hoc confitetur esse Deum, sed dicit Verbum istud aliquando quidem Patris nomine vocitari, aliquando autem Verbi nomine nuncupari: unde etiam hoc appellat, hoc est, Verbum et e Pater, sive, si dici possit, Verbipater, accipiens ad hoc, pro sui sensus nequitia, illud bene in Evangelio dictum: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1). Vides, inquiens, quia Deum Verbum aliquando Deum, aliquando Verbum appellat, tamquam extentum atque collectum. Non autem introducit Deum Verbum hominem factum; nescit enim Christi Divinitatem, nescit divinam substantiam hominem suscepisse, nescit prorsus Verbi existentem ante saecula Deitatem.
But it is necessary to speak more plainly, so that you may be able to recognize more clearly and openly the disease of each sect. Both Paul and Photinus have this difference between them: one of them says that Christ is only a man, while the other does indeed say that he is the Word; but he does not confess that this Word is God, but says that this Word is sometimes called by the name of the Father, and sometimes designated by the name of the Word: whence he also calls it this, that is, both Word and Father, or, if one may say so, Word-Father, applying to this purpose, in the wickedness of his own understanding, that well-spoken saying in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). You see, he says, that he sometimes calls God the Word God, and sometimes Word, as though extended and gathered together. But he does not introduce God the Word as made man; for he does not know the Divinity of Christ, he does not know that the divine substance took up man, he does not know at all the Deity of the Word existing before the ages.
Hanc ergo Photinus adversus Paulum distantiam habet; istam vero Sabellius ad Photinum: quia Sabellius dicit ipsum Filium quem Patrem. et ipsum Patrem quem Filium, Photinus vero Photinus vero, sicut praedixi, Deitatem Verbi non habet; Sabellius autem dicit quidem Filium, non autem dicit substantiam Filii in proprietate consistere: unde et dicit, hoc est, ipsum Patrem esse quem Filium, propterea quod unam substantiam somniat. Sed ideo divina Scriptura contra eorum morbum praemuniens, exponit Verbi incarnationem: In principio, inquit, erat Verbum (Joan. i, 1), et caetera quae sequuntur; deinde descendens [Baluz. scandens] ait: Et Verbum caro factum est (Ibid. 14); ut ostendat substantiam Filii in proprietate sua existentem, praeter substantiam Patris. Denique cogitur Photinus arctatus Verbum dicere, non autem Verbum hoc Filium confitetur: haec Spiritus praevidens cordi scriptoris hujus se infudit, ut catholicorum animas muniat. Et quid ait? Verbum caro factum est.
Photinus therefore has this difference from Paul, and Sabellius this difference from Photinus: because Sabellius says that the Son himself is the Father, and the Father himself is the Son; but Photinus, as I said before, does not hold the Deity of the Word; Sabellius, however, does indeed speak of the Son, but he does not say that the substance of the Son consists in its own proper character; hence he also says that the Father himself is the Son, for the reason that he dreams of a single substance. But for this reason divine Scripture, forearming against their disease, sets forth the incarnation of the Word: In the beginning, it says, was the Word, and the rest that follows; then, descending, it says: And the Word was made flesh; so that it may show that the substance of the Son exists in its own proper character, apart from the substance of the Father. Finally Photinus, pressed hard, is compelled to say “the Word,” but he does not confess that this Word is the Son: the Spirit, foreseeing these things, poured himself into the heart of this writer, so that he might fortify the souls of catholics. And what does he say? The Word was made flesh.
Ecce agnovisti interim Verbi substantiam propriam, quomodo etiam agnoscamus Unigenitum, quia Pater non est secundum Photinum, nec, sed Deus Verbum et Filius:, inquit,, hoc est, in nostra habitavit natura. Et Verbum caro facium est, bona etiam locutionis ipsius designatio, ut undique curararum inanium sanitas auferatur: Et Verbum caro factum est, suscepit, inquit, nostram naturam. Deinde ui benignitas amplior et admiratio esset, a viliore parte naturae nominat humanitatis susceptionem, Verbum, dicens, caro factum est; non quod de sua essentia decesserit, propter hoc enim adjecit: Et habitavit in nobis; ut ostendat susceptae humanitatis inhabitationem, et Verbum, ait, caro facium est.
Quoniam autem non demutationem demonstrat, dicendo, factum est, ex aliis verbis divinae Scripturae evangelistae vocem agnoscere possumus. Audiatur [Baluz. Videatur] apostolus Paulus de Domino vociferans: Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis, factus pro nobis maledictum (Gal. iii, 13). Certe si secundum mutabilitatem dictum esse intelligeretur, quod factum est, non poterat benedictionem donare quod maledictum est, non poterat maledictum a maledictione liberare. Quid ergo est factum est?
Behold, you have now recognized the proper substance of the Word, and how we may also recognize the Only-begotten, that he is not the Father according to Photinus, nor [the Father], but God the Word and the Son: he says, that is, he dwelt in our nature. And "the Word was made flesh" is also a good indication of his own manner of speaking, so that on every side the healing of empty cares may be removed: "And the Word was made flesh," he says, he took up our nature. Then, so that the kindness might be more abundant and the wonder greater, he names the assumption of humanity from the viler part of nature, saying, "the Word was made flesh"; not that he departed from his own essence, for on this account he added: "And dwelt in us," so as to show the indwelling of the humanity that was taken up, and, he says, "the Word was made flesh."
But since he does not demonstrate a change by saying "was made," we can recognize the evangelist's voice from other words of the divine Scripture. Let the apostle Paul be heard crying out concerning the Lord: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). Surely if what was made were understood to have been said according to mutability, what is a curse could not bestow a blessing, a curse could not free from a curse. What then is "was made"?
Nobis debitum maledictum in se ipse suscepit: nobis, inquit, peccatoribus crucis poena debebatur; nos manebat judiciaria condemnatio; nobis omnis poenae genus debitum erat; nos omnis excessus supplicii exspectabat: sed venit ipse, et eam quae nobis poena debebatur, innoxia carne suscepit, ut peccatum ipsum tamquam injuste irruens condemnaret, ad diabolum peccati patrem ista vociferans: Latrones tamquam pecati reos cruci tradidisti; me autem quam ob causam cum latronibus patibulo affixisti?
Hoc et Paulus demonstrans, peccati scilicet per Dominicum corpus condemnationem: Deus, inquit, Filium mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati (Rom. viii, 3). Bene quod in similitudinem carnis, quoniam corpus quod parebat peccatricis similitudinem carnis circumferebat. Deus Filium suum misit, nomen commune naturarum, hominis scilicet et Dei. Non dixit, Deus Deum Verbum mittens, ut accepta hac voce haereticus insiliat, et dicat: Vides quemadmodum alius mittit, alius autem mittitur. Filius, o Ariane, mittitur secundum humanitatis naturam; non autem mittitur secundum essentiam Deitatis, non enim est ullus locus a Dei potentia separatus.
He himself took upon himself the curse that was owed by us. For us, he says, sinners, the penalty of the cross was owed; the condemnation of judgment awaited us; every kind of punishment was owed by us; every excess of torment awaited us. But he came himself, and took upon his innocent flesh the penalty that was owed by us, so that he might condemn sin itself as though it had rushed in unjustly, crying out to the devil, the father of sin: You handed over robbers to the cross as guilty of sin; but for what cause did you affix me to the gibbet with the robbers?
Paul also demonstrates this—namely, the condemnation of sin through the Lord's body—saying: God, sending his Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3). Well does he say "in the likeness of the flesh," since the body that was subject to it bore about the flesh in the likeness of a sinful woman. God sent his Son—a name common to the natures, that is, of man and of God. He did not say, "God sending God the Word," so that the heretic might leap upon this word and say: You see how one sends and another is sent. The Son, O Arius, is sent according to the nature of his humanity; but he is not sent according to the essence of his Deity, for there is no place separated from the power of God.
Inter plausus interea Photinus, cum arguitur, non debet effugere; de hoc enim disputans doctrinam Pauli apostoli interposui, ostendens [Baluz. attendens] quod Verbum sit Filius: Deus Filium suum misit in similitudinem camis peccati. Non dixit: Deus Deum Verbum misit; et certe Verbum Dei non erat a templi separatum natura. Statim ex imperitia in clamore insiliunt, dicentes: Quomodo alterum esse dixit Deum Verbum, et alterum Filium, qui missus est? Non dixi alterum Filium, aut alterum Deum Verbum; sed dixi Deum Verbum naturaliter et templum naturaliter alium filium conjunctione unum, sic et alibi dixi sub a principio.
Prodito in medium, et voces has argue; neli me sagittis aureis vulnerare; non sunt mihi sagittae aureae. Dico ego ad te beati Petri verbis: Aurum et argentum non est mihi; sed quod habeo, do tibi in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi Nazareni (Act. iii, 6). Disce hominem et Deum.
Meanwhile amid the applause, Photinus, when he is accused, ought not to escape; for in discussing this matter I have interposed the doctrine of the apostle Paul, showing that the Word is the Son: God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not say: God sent God the Word; and certainly the Word of God was not separated from the nature of the temple. At once, out of ignorance, they leap up with a shout, saying: How did he say that God the Word is one thing, and the Son who was sent is another? I did not say that the Son is another, or that God the Word is another; but I said that God the Word is naturally one thing, and the temple naturally another son, one by conjunction, and so I have also said elsewhere from the beginning.
Bring it out into the open, and refute these words; do not wound me with golden arrows; there are no golden arrows for me. I say to you in the words of blessed Peter: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Learn the man and the God.
Sed id quod dicebam, missionem a Patre nusquam divina Scriptura divino Verbo consignat, sed Filio, qui est Deus Verbum et homo; sic et alibi: Misit Deus Filium suum (Gal. iv, 4). Non dixit: Misit Deus Deum Verbum; ambo enim, si ita diceret, invenirentur locales et in parte. Si Divinitatis erat natura, qui mittebatur, et qui mittebat, localis et in parte est; qui enim mittitur, illuc mittitur ubi non est.
Misit Deus Filium suum (Gal. iv, 4), quoniam inconveniens erat Deitatis naturam inter missos videri, Paulus senex omnium Dominum possidens Christum, verius ac liquidius de se ipso noscentem: Misit, inquit, Deus Filium suum facium ex muliere (Ibid.). Filius Dei natus est, Deus Verbum et homo: ergo quae peperit, propter unitatem dicatur genitrix Dei, id est,; propter naturam vero hominis, hominis genitrix, hoc est,; et quoniam utrumque una locutione dicere refugis, Deum et hominem dico, ne dixeris (ecce voce distinguor a te lautuna). Sed cum Dei genitricem, hoc est, vocas memineris et hominis genitricem, hoc est, vocare, ne dispensationem auferas, a quae est caput nostrae salutis.
But what I was saying: divine Scripture nowhere assigns the sending to the Father as being of the divine Word, but of the Son, who is God the Word and man; so too elsewhere: God sent his Son (Gal. 4:4). He did not say: God sent God the Word; for if he had said so, both would be found to be local and in a place. If it was the nature of the Divinity that was being sent, and that was sending, then it is local and in a place; for what is sent is sent to that place where it is not.
God sent his Son (Gal. 4:4), since it was unfitting that the nature of the Deity be seen among those who are sent, Paul, an old man possessing Christ, the Lord of all, knowing more truly and clearly concerning himself: God, he says, sent his Son made of a woman (Ibid.). The Son of God was born, God the Word and man: therefore she who gave birth, on account of the unity, is called the mother of God, that is,; but on account of the nature of the man, the mother of a man, that is,; and because you shrink from saying both in one expression, I say God and man, do not say (behold, by my voice I am distinguished from you, lautuna). But when you call her the mother of God, that is, remember also to call her the mother of a man, that is, lest you remove the dispensation, which is the head of our salvation.
Misit Deus Filimn suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege (Ibid.). Quis erat factus sub lege? Divinitatis natura? Quomodo? tamquam posset legis praecepta servare? Quomodo? tamquam posset ostendere sacerdotibus legis praevaricationem se non incurrisse? purificationes quoque legales suscipere habuit Divinitatis natura in templum ascendens hostias immolare? Et quis audebat Divinitatis naturam fuisse [Baluz. non fuisse] in legem praevaricatam sacerdotibus persuadere?
Sic Filius sub lege factus est, et non est factus: factus quidem est, humanitate suscepta; non est factus, majestate Deitatis; Deitas enim, quae legem promulgavit, cui alteri, tamquam legislatori, habuit, quae sunt legis offerre?
Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Propter hoc eum qui non noverat peccatum pro nobis peccatum fecit (Ibid.). Sicut et illud: Factus est pro nobis maledictum (Gal. iii, 13); non benedictionem illam quae est Deitatis naturae in maledictum versam conscriptor nobis exposuit; sed quia suscepit in se naturae nostrae peccatum, improbam in eum poenam irruisse significavit: sic et quod pro nobis peccatum fecit, videri eum fecit conspectibus hominum, reis aequalia sustinere, et aequaliter cum latronibus crucifigi; sed non pro se. Sed pro quibus, o Paule?
God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Ibid.). Who was it that was made under the law? The nature of the Godhead? How so? As though it could keep the precepts of the law? How so? As though it could show to the priests of the law that it had not incurred the transgression of the law? Was the nature of the Godhead, ascending into the temple, to undertake the legal purifications and to offer sacrifices? And who would dare to persuade the priests that the nature of the Godhead had been [Baluzius: had not been] in transgression of the law?
Thus the Son was made under the law, and was not made: he was made, indeed, by taking on humanity; he was not made, by the majesty of the Godhead; for the Godhead, which promulgated the law, to what other, as to a lawgiver, did it have to offer the things that are of the law?
God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. For this reason he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us (Ibid.). As also that: He was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13); the writer did not set before us that blessing which is of the nature of the Godhead as turned into a curse; but because he took upon himself the sin of our nature, he signified that the unjust penalty rushed upon him: so too, that he made him to be sin for us, he made him to appear in the sight of men as enduring things equal to the guilty, and to be crucified equally with robbers; but not for himself. But for whom, O Paul?
Eum qui non noverat peccatum pro nobis peccatum fecit?
Sed id quaeritur, unde Verbum Filius. Ut Photinum maxime convincamus. Verbum quidem confitentem, non autem dicentem Deum Verbum Filium: Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis (Joan. i, 14). Vide quomodo et susceptionem hominis demonstrat, cum ait: Et habitavit in nobis, et vidimus gloriam ejus. Cujus? Verbi sine dubio: Gloriam tamquam Umgeniti a Patre. Vides quod non alius quidem Unigenitus, alius vero a Patre: ergo Dei Verbum Filius. Quomodo igitur, Photine, subvertis substantiam Divinitatis [Baluz. deitatis]?
Sed si respicimus ad aviditatem studii vestri, hic nos sol ipse deficiet, et ad alteram doctrinam tendere forsitan non valebimus. Haec igitur apud vos conservate, scit enim diabolus hominibus et de bonis nociva moliri. Bonae quidem de Deo disputationes; vitae enim in se effundunt unguentum, sed disputationes generant contentiones, contentiones iracundiam movent, iracundia provocat manus, manus provocatae moventur ad vulnera, vulnera vero, absit experientia ab ipso sermone, quid faciant, et quem habeant iinem? Namque aliquoties ultimam generant mortem.
Did he who knew no sin become sin for us?
But the question is raised from what source the Word is the Son. This is chiefly to refute Photinus. He confesses indeed that he is the Word, but does not say that God the Word is the Son: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (John 1:14). See how he also demonstrates the assumption of a man, when he says: And dwelt among us, and we saw his glory. Whose glory? Of the Word, without doubt: Glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father. You see that it is not one who is the Only-begotten and another who is from the Father; therefore the Word of God is the Son. How then, Photinus, do you overthrow the substance of the Divinity?
But if we have regard to the eagerness of your zeal, here the sun itself will fail us, and perhaps we shall not be able to press on to another doctrine. Keep these things therefore among yourselves, for the devil knows how to contrive harmful things for men even from good things. Good indeed are disputations about God; for they pour out the ointment of life upon themselves, but disputations generate contentions, contentions stir up anger, anger provokes hands, hands once provoked are moved to wounds, and wounds—may the experience be far from this very discourse—what do they do, and what end do they have? For sometimes they generate final death.
Quod, AEgyptiis quidem curantibus, in nullo continget; nullus enim locus eis insolentiae datur in civitate quae regnat; una namque illis cura est, totum ubique turbare. Sed nos aliis contra eos armis certemus, Pauli videlicet mandata sumentes: Oportet, inquit, episcopum irreprehensibilem esse, unius uxoris virum, sobrium, pudicum, decentem, ornatum, docibilem, amplectentem eum qui secundum doctrinam est, fidelem sermonem, ut potens sit exhortari in doctrina sana, et eos qui contradicunt arguere (i Tim. iii, 2); non dixit eosqui contradicunt potens sit vulnerare; sed, ut potens sit eos qui contradicunt redarguere; et sanam defendere atque amplecti doctrinam. Nam quid ergo si ille irritaverit, inquies? Oportet mansuetudine docere contradicentes: Nequando det illis Deus recognoscere, et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, a quo captivi tenentur, secundum ejus voluntatem (II Tim. ii, 26).
Which, indeed, with the Egyptians taking care, will come to pass in nothing; for no place is given to their insolence in the city that reigns; for their one care is to disturb everything everywhere. But let us strive against them with other arms, namely taking up the mandates of Paul: A bishop, he says, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, modest, decent, orderly, apt to teach, holding fast to the faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict (1 Tim. 3:2); he did not say that he should be able to wound those who contradict, but that he should be able to refute those who contradict, and to defend and hold fast sound doctrine. For what then, you will say, if that man has provoked? One must teach those who contradict with gentleness: Lest at any time God grant them to recognize, and they recover from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive according to his will (2 Tim. 2:26).
Nemo perturbationes perturbationibus sedat; nullus medicus vulnera vulneribus sanat. Propter pacem a tyrannidis temeritatem tolero; contra calcitrantem non calcitro; calcitrabatur Christus aliquando, sed ipse non calcitrabat; sed quid ad calcitrantem dicebat: Durum est contra stimulum calcitrare (Act. v, 5)?
Haec igitur apud nosmetipsos memoriter, ut dixi, servemus; omnem haeresim aversati odio habeamus eum Paulo Samosateno Photinum; Arium cum Apollinari detestemur, et ad omnem prorsus seetam pravae fidei implacabiles, fidemque Ecclesiae amplectentes, ad membra propria non conturbemur. Et qui dicunt tantum, tametsi desit eis quod postea forte suscipient, et circa rectam fidem claudicent; verumtamen membra sunt Ecclesiae. Et qui dicunt tantum hominis genitrix, id est,, et isti sunt membra Ecclesiae, sed spiritalis inopes medicinae. Non ergo in fratres fraternitas irruat: Frater fratrem adjuvans exaltabitur, sicut civitas firma (Prov. xviii, 9). Et iterum Paulus: Fratres, inquit, etsi praeoccupatus fuerit quis in aliquo delicto, vos qui spirituales estis, instruite hujusmodi in spiritu mansuetudinis (Gal. vi, 1). Puta qui dicit, si et dicat, quod nomen sit duarum significatio naturarum. Et oportet ad aedificationem Ecclesiae omnia facere.
No one calms disturbances by disturbances; no physician heals wounds by wounds. For the sake of peace I endure the rashness of tyranny; I do not kick against the one who kicks; Christ was once kicked against, but he himself did not kick back; but what did he say to the one who kicked? It is hard for you to kick against the goad (Acts 5:5)?
Let us therefore keep these things in memory among ourselves, as I have said; let us turn away from every heresy and hate it; let us detest Photinus along with Paul of Samosata, Arius with Apollinaris, and let us be implacable toward every sect of depraved faith, and embracing the faith of the Church, let us not be disturbed against our own members. And those who say only this, even if there is lacking in them what perhaps they will later receive, and they limp concerning the right faith; nevertheless they are members of the Church. And those who say only that she is the mother of a man, that is, and these too are members of the Church, but destitute of spiritual medicine. Therefore let not brotherhood rush against brothers: A brother helped by his brother shall be exalted, like a strong city (Prov 18:9). And again Paul says: Brothers, even if someone has been overtaken in some fault, you who are spiritual, instruct such a one in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1). Consider the one who says, if he also says, that the name is the signification of two natures. And it is necessary to do all things for the edification of the Church.
Est quidem, ut dixi, vox ista, id est,, significativa duarum naturarum, et Deitatis, et humanitatis: quando autem cum simplicioribus agitur, opus est voce manifestiore. Quid impedit intellectum dici, et et sicut qui dicit, Christus, confitetur quia Deus et homo sit: sic et et si dicas, utrumque confessus es.
Deponamus igitur, quaeso, utrinque adversus membra nostra aciem contentionis; et si quisquam impudentior fuerit, ignoscamus; et si quislibet subtilius dicat, venia similiter dignus habeatur: unum tamen prospicientes, ne creaturam Verbum Deum quispiam dicat; ne humanitatem, quae suscepta est, imperfectam. Si quis dicat haec, justa adversus hunc ira suscipiatur; si vero in his quae tu confiteris distantiam affert, quid non ad eum dicis: Si locutio fratrem meum offendit, non eam proferam in aeternum. Quod si [Baluz. add. ego] alicui ad pacis consilium minus Idoneus videor, audite ad vos Paulum clamantem: Quae didicistis, et audistis, et accepistis, et vidistis in me, haec agite, et Deus pacis erit vobiscum (Philipp. iv, 9).
This expression, as I said, is indeed a word—that is, [it is]—signifying the two natures, both of Divinity and of humanity; but when one deals with the simpler folk, a clearer expression is needed. What prevents one from saying it and understanding it, and just as one who says "Christ" confesses that he is God and man, so too if you say it, you have confessed both.
Let us therefore, I ask, lay aside on both sides the edge of contention against our own members; and if anyone has been more shameless, let us forgive him; and if anyone speaks too subtly, let him likewise be deemed worthy of pardon: looking to one thing only, that no one call the Word God a creature, and that no one call the humanity that was assumed imperfect. If anyone says these things, let a just anger be roused against him; but if he introduces a distinction in those things which you yourself confess, why do you not say to him: "If my manner of speaking offends my brother, I will not utter it forever." But if I seem to anyone less suitable for the counsel of peace, hear Paul crying out to you: "What you have learned and heard and received and seen in me, do these things, and the God of peace will be with you" (Philippians 4:9).
SERMO XIII.
Die altera, id est, Dominica dictus.
Aliis in terris sita est aliarum utilitas rerum, et quibusdam quidem in militia degere, magna videtur utilitas; quibusdam vero in foro rerum venalium oonvenit mercatura; item aliis optabile est arti maritimae studium commodare; nonnullis alterius cujuslibet terrestris conversationis inire negotium: pietatis autem scientia in commune omnibus hominibus, regibus scilicet et sacerdotibus, popularibus ac potentibus, utilis ac necessaria est.
Quae est autem scientia pietatis? Si quis velit compendio discere; a parco enim, et mihi qui fessus sum, et vobis qui constipatione laboratis. Si quis ergo, ut dicebam, velit compendio discere; scientia pietatis est, de consubstantivae Trinitatis Divinitate rectam inire rationem, et fateri divinam naturam corporatum hominem assumpsisse. De his, quae frequenter dicta sunt, tamquam dicta non sint, urgetis, et circa exactionem vehementer insistitis: quoniam igitur necesse est violentiae vestrae succumbere, quae piam [Baluz. impiam] in nobis possidet tyrannidem, iterum apud vos eadem verba repetemus. Servate igitur compendio hanc scientiam pietatis.
SERMON XIII.
Spoken on the second day, that is, on Sunday.
The usefulness of other things is situated in other lands, and to some indeed to spend their time in military service seems a great usefulness; to some, however, trade in the marketplace of goods for sale is fitting; likewise to others it is desirable to devote their study to the maritime art; to not a few, to enter into the business of any other earthly occupation whatever. But the knowledge of godliness is useful and necessary in common for all men—for kings, that is, and priests, for common folk and the powerful alike.
But what is the knowledge of godliness? If anyone wishes to learn it in brief—for indeed from a sparing speaker, both for me who am weary and for you who labor under constipation. If anyone, then, as I was saying, wishes to learn it in brief: the knowledge of godliness is to enter into a right understanding of the Divinity of the consubstantial Trinity, and to confess that the divine nature assumed a man with a body. Concerning these things which have been said frequently, as though they had not been said, you press me, and you insist vehemently on exacting them. Since, therefore, it is necessary to succumb to your violence, which holds a pious tyranny over us, we shall again repeat the same words before you. Keep, therefore, this knowledge of godliness in brief.
Quae est autem ista, nisi [Baluz, om. nisi ], et consubstantivae divinae Trinitatis, et assumentis hominem divinae naturae, et in virgineo utero camis susceptae, perfectique hominis assumpti a Divinitate; dehinc perfectae Divinitatis, et perfectae humanitatis in unum Filium conjunctarum excellentior contemplatio, duarum jus naturarum in umam auctoritatem ratione divina conveniens.
Hinc vobis saepe diximus, quomodo Christus, nominis utriusque sit appellatio significativa, id est, humanitatis et divinae naturae. Hinc si quis dicat Christum tantummodo expresse, sciat in isto nomine utramque significari et connuncupari naturam.
Hinc beatus Matthaeus Evangeliorum conscriptor, cum ad generationis venisset arcanum, a neutra natura generationis fecit narrationem, sed magis a Christi vocabulo; oportet autem expresse dicere, ut omnibus ad perspiciendum fiat facilior intellectus: Liber, inquit, generationis Jesu Christi (Matth. i, 1). Non dixit: Liber generationis Dei Verbi; neque liber generationis hominis. Si enim dixisset, liber generationis hominis, Christum nobis solum hominem demonstraret. Item si diceret, Liber generationis Dei Verbi, solam nobis sine humanitate introduceret Deitatem. In Christi ergo appellatione complectitur utramque naturam, ut neutra sine altera possit intelligi.
What is this contemplation, then, if not the more excellent contemplation of the consubstantial divine Trinity, and of the divine nature that assumed a man, and of the flesh conceived in the virgin's womb, and of the perfect man assumed by the Godhead; and thereafter of perfect Divinity and perfect humanity joined together in one Son, the union of the two natures into one authority coming together by divine reason.
Hence we have often told you how Christ is a name signifying both, that is, both humanity and the divine nature. Hence if anyone says "Christ" only, let him know that in this name both natures are signified and named together.
Hence the blessed Matthew, writer of the Gospels, when he came to the mystery of the generation, made his account of the generation from neither nature, but rather from the name of Christ; for one ought to speak expressly, so that the understanding may become easier for all to perceive: The book, he says, of the generation of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:1). He did not say, The book of the generation of God the Word; nor the book of the generation of a man. For if he had said, the book of the generation of a man, he would show us Christ as only a man. Likewise if he had said, The book of the generation of God the Word, he would introduce to us the Godhead alone, without humanity. In the name of Christ, therefore, he embraces both natures, so that neither can be understood without the other.
Hinc et sanctae Virgini, eo quod eam Christi genitricem dicimus, nomen geminae appellationis convenienter aptamus, id est,, quod est genitrix Dei, e et, id est, hominis genitrix.
Quoniam autem oportet, propter eos qui lucidiorem requirunt intellectum, maxime cum sint Ecclesiae filii, uti manifestiore locutione, propterea et modo eadem definitione qua prius breviter de illa beata Maria semper virgine praedicabam, etiam nunc evidentiore sermone summa voce proclamo, quoniam sancta Virgo, et Dei est, et hominis genitrix, id est et: genitrix quidem Dei, propterea quod templum, quod in ea creatum est a Spiritu sancto, unitum est Divinitati; hominis vero genitrix, propter susceptas a Divinitatis natura nostrae naturae primitias.
Haec sunt in compendio dogmata pietatis. Haec per omnia retinentes memoriter servate, ubique hoereticorum pravam gloriam declinantes. Non quomodo apud illos detrita locutio est, ita putandum est etiam Ecclesiam dicere, quia neque cum illi Filium dicunt, et Ecclesia Filium confitetur, Filii apud utrosque par et similis intellectus est; sed apud illos quidem Filii nudum vocabulum est, non habens Patri consubstantivum aliquid; apud nos vero Filii apellatio cum causa vel re vel opere est. Sic apud illos iterum omnium Dominus Christus Deus nominatur, nominatur apud nos quoque; sed apud illos creatus, apud nos vero cum eo qui genuit increatus.
Hence also to the holy Virgin, because we call her the mother of Christ, we fittingly apply a name of twofold designation, that is, Theotokos, which means mother of God, and Anthropotokos, that is, mother of man.
But since it is necessary, for the sake of those who require a clearer understanding, especially since they are children of the Church, to use more manifest language, therefore even now, with the same definition by which I previously preached briefly concerning that blessed Mary ever virgin, I now also proclaim with clearer speech and with the greatest voice, that the holy Virgin is both mother of God and mother of man, that is, both Theotokos and Anthropotokos: mother of God indeed, because the temple that was created in her by the Holy Spirit has been united to the Divinity; but mother of man, because of the firstfruits of our nature received by the nature of the Divinity.
These are, in summary, the doctrines of piety. Keeping these in mind in all things, preserve them in memory, everywhere avoiding the depraved glory of the heretics. For it must not be supposed that the Church speaks in the same way as their worn-out expression is used among them, because neither when they say "Son" and the Church confesses "Son" is the understanding of "Son" equal and similar among both; but among them "Son" is a bare word, having nothing consubstantial with the Father; among us, however, the designation "Son" is with cause, or reality, or work. So again among them the Lord of all, Christ, is named God, and He is named God among us also; but among them as created, among us however as uncreated with Him who begot Him.
Non igitur ex una eademque appellatione in unum deducamur cum haereticis intellectum; sed confiteamur simul humanitatem et Divinitatem in una generatione Filii esse conjunctam; neque Deitate in carnem decidente, immutabilis est enim Divinitas, et hoc Deus Judaeis manifestans dicebat: Ego sum, ego sum, et non sum mutatus (Mal. iii, 5); neque per in carnationem carne commutata; non enim pudet Deum naturae quam suscepit, non pudet possidere sibimet conregnantem; nam si puderet, non eam susciperet. Susceptam autem, propter humani generis dilectionem, habet naturam nostram Divinitatis inspoliabile vestimentum. Horum memoriam per omnia possidete in Christo, cui est gloria in saecula saeculorum.
Therefore let us not be led by one and the same designation into a single understanding with the heretics; but let us confess that both the humanity and the Divinity are conjoined in the one generation of the Son; neither let the Divinity fall down into flesh—for the Divinity is unchangeable, and God, making this manifest to the Jews, said: I am, I am, and I am not changed; nor let the flesh be changed through the incarnation; for God is not ashamed of the nature which He took up, He is not ashamed to possess as co-king with Himself that which He took up; for if He were ashamed, He would not have taken it up. But having taken it up, out of love for the human race, He holds our nature as the inviolable garment of the Divinity. Keep the remembrance of these things in all things in Christ, to whom is glory for ever and ever.