Works 3 part 2/8

At length we have found that the Eutychian heresy, derived from the most bitter fountain of Apollinaris, is borne along by turbid channels even to the muddy gulf of Arius; with which it is joined in such a bond of faithlessness that it refers to the dishonor of the divinity all things which Christ either spoke or did according to the dispensation of the flesh; while it contends that there is only one nature of the divinity. Wherefore we exhort all men who are followers of this nefarious faithlessness, while life remains, while it is permitted to repent, to change the opinion of their error.

And rather to follow the teaching of Gregory and Basil, of Theophilus too and of John, the most renowned bishop of the city of Constantinople, as also of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and of very many others who in ancient times flourished in the Church, concerning the property of each nature; whose opinions on this matter we offer them from without, to be read through. Meanwhile I ask the reader not to despise altogether the meanness of our discourse: for perhaps the speech might have been more eloquently adorned. But we have so tempered our style that we might commend to readers the substance rather than the words. And above all, this work ought not to be inflated with the buskin of swelling eloquence, lest there arise some necessity of translating it into Greek.

For the integrity of the meanings can with more difficulty be preserved with equal beauty of expression in another tongue. I. Various indeed and diverse, yet from one fountain, has the error of heretical depravity emerged. For the worst hinge and origin of evils, which has of itself brought forth the occasions of all impieties, is this: when the force of the heavenly sayings, profaned by the fault of those who understand ill, is not weighed according to the quality of its own meaning, but is diverted to other things according to the choice and will of the reader, otherwise than the reason of truth demands. But this is most easy for anyone to detect from the fabrications of all the heretics. There is also another occasion of impiety, which, in a wondrous manner, excessive piety has furnished to the less cautious.

And on this account it is greatly and abundantly to be lamented, that the evil of a deadly faithlessness becomes impious there, whence another becomes pious; that there wretched captives are allotted the toils of bondage, whence the power of liberty is acquired; that they are entangled in errors there, where every error of ignorance is loosed; that one becomes faithless there, whence another is faithful; that by the same light one is blinded, by which another is most brightly illumined.

And that this is so may appear by clearer proofs, let us compare the dogmas of the opinions of Sabellius and Arius, of Manichaeus and Photinus, of Nestorius and Eutyches; in which we find them to have stood so contrary to one another that — what is the more wonderful — their error bears testimony to the truth, and the discordant opinions of the faithless sound together into one harmony of right faith, and their empty contests beget the trophy of our victory. II. For the faithlessness of Sabellius condemns the error of Arius. Again, the error of the Arian dogma excludes the impiety of Sabellius.

For Sabellius, deceived by a confession of one nature — plausible indeed — thought that there was one person of the Trinity, so that from this, that the nature of the three is one, one person also should be understood to be. On the contrary, Arius, accepting three subsisting and distinct persons, as indeed they truly are, believed their natures to be three and dissimilar; and what pertains to distinction, this he referred to the disparity of those same persons; wherefore he dared to define them as far unequal both in merits and in degrees.

Let this man's error, then, serve to confute the impiety of the Sabellians, and let Sabellius hear that there are three persons of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to such a degree that Arius dares to profess them dissimilar in power and diverse in nature. Let this same Arius hear, on the other hand, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one power and one nature, to such a degree that Sabellius says there is one person of them. Correct, then, your evil, O Arius, by his evil, and let him correct his own evil by your evil; that the good which both of you hold along with us may be common to you. For it is good, O Arius, that you say there are three persons, but it is evil that you separate them too far both in degrees and in natures.

Likewise you, O Sabellius — it is good that you say there is one nature, but it is evil that the truth of the one nature compels you to confess one person. I bring a compendium to your dispute: nay, not I, but Christ, who, as a most just judge, decreed that the controversies of your suits should be settled by one sentence of the Word, saying: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). For by saying I and the Father, He distinguished what Sabellius wrongly confounds; but by adding we are one, He united what Arius wrongly divides, so that 'one' avails for the unity of nature, and 'we are' for the distinction of persons. Of such a kind is this: Baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19);

in the one name of the three insinuating that there is one nature of the deity. Thus the best Judge, amid the noxious and lethal contentions of Christians, pronounced a saving sentence of judgment, that he should perish by his own fault who has impugned the sentence of the Judge. III. Likewise Manichaeus, while he regards the miracles of such great powers which the Son of God wrought, will not confess Him to be man. Photinus, while he attends in Him to the nature of our body, judges Him not to be God. The one, to fortify himself, reiterates the powers; the other, the infirmities. The one alleges the proclamations of the deity, the other those of the humanity. From the one the majesty of so great a name recalls him from the profession of the humanity;

the lowliness of the injuries which he sees to be unworthy of God retains this other one only in the confession of man. Miracles call the one away, sufferings hold the other back. The one is deceived by the deity, the other is offended by the humanity. The one says, He is God; the other says, He is man. A great marvel, that the truth is confirmed by the assault upon itself; and that each speaks the truth, while each lies. Hear, then, O Manichaeus: that He is God, you say truly; that He is not also man, you are deceived. Hear, O Photinus: He is truly man, as you assert, though not as you assert; but the same is also God, which you impiously shun. He is God to such a degree that Manichaeus denies Him to be man; He is man to such a degree that you do not believe Him to be God. Since therefore you are both contrary to each other, you both make for us:

you are far separated, and in the midst is the way which you have left: one on this side, the other on that. Come hither to us, and you will find one another: let the one pass over into the other's opinion, yet so that he does not abandon his own: let what you hold privately be common to you: let the one confess the man, do you confess the God, and so by your own proper truth depart at length from your own proper error. IV. Let us come now also to Nestorius and Eutyches, who have striven throughout the whole East to overshadow the serenity of the catholic faith with the dark mists of faithlessness.

And although their wicked teaching has been refuted along with its authors, yet their followers, having gained an ample occasion of time, so spread abroad the pernicious and lethal poisons of their savage dogma that what the onslaught of the authors could not accomplish, the far-raging disease of their pestilent assertion has wounded almost the whole Church. To these, since I have already answered competently in one little book, I will now briefly and concisely show their empty anxieties and vain fears. It is certain that the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the catholic faith and the proclamations of the Scriptures, has two nativities — one of the Father without time, the other of the mother without seed:

and bearing the nature of each of these two nativities — namely that of God, by which He was born of the Father, and that of man, by which He was begotten of the mother — Christ is one and the same God and man. For the twofold nativity gave to the one Christ a twofold nature, since He who is God of the Father, the same is also man of the mother. These natures, therefore, which He has from each parent, the Apostle calls two forms, saying of Him: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7). And of these forms — whether that which He has from God the Father, or that which He received from man the mother — it is more clearly set forth by prophetic foretelling.

Isaiah speaks thus concerning the form of His servanthood, which through the lowliness of the Passion appeared in a manner unseemly: 'His countenance,' he says, 'was inglorious among men, and His form among the sons of men' (Isa. LII, 14). And again: 'We saw Him,' he says, 'and there was in Him no comeliness nor beauty; but His form was despised and failing beyond the sons of men' (Isa. LIII, 2). And these things Isaiah spoke concerning the servile form, in which He bore all the injuries of the Passion. But concerning the form of His divinity, which, retaining its beauty through its own impassibility, though battered by the injuries of the Passion could not be defiled, David sang more plainly, saying: 'Beautiful in form beyond the sons of men' (Ps. XLIV, 3).

Do you perceive that in the one person of Christ the mystery of both forms, that is, of both natures, is contained? The form of the servant is proclaimed unseemly and despised; the form of God in Him is proclaimed beautiful and most fair. Let another take these things however he will; meanwhile, by the prophetic and apostolic proclamation we have taught that Christ has two forms. Now let us teach that in both He is one and the same, and has one person. The Apostle says: 'And what I have given, I gave in the person of Christ' (II Cor. II, 10). It has therefore become clear that Christ subsists out of two abiding natures in the union of person. V. Now let us see by what error Nestorius and Eutyches were deceived. Nestorius, by introducing two natures, supposed there to be two persons;

and on this account he thought, by a sacrilegious doctrine, to introduce two Christs. Eutyches, looking to the one person, judged there to be one nature, and on this account dared to deny the human nature. And because in Christ there is both the property of the natures and the union of person, Nestorius, attending to the property of the natures, fell away from the union of person, and supposed two Christs, one passible, the other impassible. Eutyches, fixing upon the one person, departed from the property of the natures, and asserted that the very divinity suffered. To such a degree, therefore, are there not two Christs, nor two persons, that Eutyches believes there to be one nature.

Again, precisely because there is not one nature but two, Nestorius supposes there to be two Christs and two persons. And so Nestorius, to fortify the impiety of his doctrine, whereby he wishes the one Christ to be understood as suffering in the Passion, makes use of that testimony of the Apostle, who writes thus to the Hebrews: 'For we saw Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honour, that He might, apart from God, taste death for all' (Heb. II, 9). Again Eutyches, in order to subject the deity to the Passion, nonetheless brings forward the Apostle as his witness, who says of the princes of this world, who did not know the wisdom of God: 'For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory' (I Cor. II, 9).

You see of how great a peril it is, either not to believe one person in Christ, or to be unwilling to profess two natures. Great snares of treachery are stretched out on both sides, which Solomon, by the prophetic Spirit, more cautiously commanded to be avoided: 'Remember,' he says, 'that thou walkest in the midst of snares' (Ecclus. IX, 20). For on this side Eutyches, on that side Nestorius, stand armed with the daggers of perfidy. While I defend against Nestorius the one person of Christ, I am thought, according to Eutyches, to deny the human nature. While against Eutyches I assert two natures, I am thought, according to Nestorius, to profess two persons—because he believed that two Christs and two persons must be ascribed to the two natures. VI.

But that we may refute the impious and detestable errors of these men by a catholic understanding, let us treat the mystery of the property of each nature and the secret of the one person. Christ is one, the same God and the same man, having in His words and deeds the one thing that belongs to His humanity, the other that belongs to the nature of His proper divinity—although both together pertain to His one person or substance—as that which is said: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God' (John I, 1). And what He Himself says: 'Before Abraham was, I am' (John VIII, 58), cannot be referred to the nature of His humanity, by which He took His beginning from the Virgin. Again, what is said of Him:

'And the child grew and was strengthened, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him' (Luke II, 40); and: 'When He was twelve years old, He went up with His parents to Jerusalem'; and what follows: 'And Jesus advanced in age and in wisdom and in grace with God and men'—this cannot agree with the nature of His deity, because the deity neither receives advance in age, nor feels any increase, nor is subject to the course of times, nor is reckoned by the number of years. And, to say all things briefly: it is not of one nature, though it be of one person, to call the Father equal to oneself and to declare oneself less than the Father; to have no beginning, and to subsist from a beginning.

This is the property of the natures, out of which Christ, subsisting as one Son of God and the same Son of man, has and bears one person only. Therefore this one and the same is both equal to the Father according to His deity, and inferior to the Father according to the nature of His humanity; and thus He both has no beginning, because He is God, and has a beginning, because the same God is man. If, then, you ask me whether Christ has a beginning or has not, I will answer you that He both has and has not: He has according to His humanity, He has not according to His divinity. When I say 'He has' or 'He has not,' it pertains to the union of person. When I say 'according to His divinity and according to His humanity,' it pertains to the property of the natures:

And that this understanding may shine forth with clearer proofs, let us set down yet plainer things. VII. We believe that the Word of God descended from heaven, without flesh, without the appellation of man; yet so as not to forsake the heavens; that this Word was incarnate in the virginal womb, not changed into flesh, made and called the Son of man. If anyone believes otherwise, without doubt he is anathema. If anyone says that the man, that is, the flesh, descended from heaven, assuredly he is anathema. What then does the same Lord mean when He says: 'No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven' (John III, 13)? And again: 'If you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before' (John VI, 63).

Behold, the Son of man is read to have descended from heaven, although it is agreed that the Word alone—that is, the bare Word, without flesh, without the appellation of man—descended from heaven. Behold, the flesh, that is, the Son of man, is read to have been then in heaven, which never descended thence and which had not yet ascended thither. But this is the mystery of the one person, this the sacrament of the one Christ subsisting in both, this the secret of the property of both natures. For because the Word is so united with the flesh, in an inexplicable manner, that the Word itself is called flesh—though it is not flesh, because it was not changed into flesh—and the flesh is called God, though it was not changed into the nature of the deity; but the Word, on account of its flesh, is man, and the flesh, on account of the Word, is God;

and whatever is proper to the Word is common with the flesh, and whatever is proper to the flesh is common with the Word—since the Word and the flesh are one Christ and one person. Therefore, on account of this communion which the union of person grants while the property of the natures is preserved, the Word with the flesh, that is, the Son of man, is read to have descended from heaven, although the Word alone descended without flesh; and God is read to have been buried and to have lain three days in the tomb, although the flesh alone was buried. Therefore according to the property of nature the Word alone descended from heaven; according to the union of person the flesh also descended at the same time, since the person of the flesh is in the Word which descended.

Likewise, according to the property of nature, the flesh alone felt death, the flesh alone underwent the office of burial; but according to the union of person, God died and was buried, because the person of the Word is in the flesh which felt the loss of death. Therefore according to the property of nature the Word descended from heaven, not the flesh; according to the property of nature the flesh died, not the Word; but according to the union of person both the flesh descended from heaven, and the Word died and was buried. VIII. When, therefore, we say that God suffered and died, let not Nestorius take fright, because we say it according to the union of person. Again, when we say that God neither suffered nor died, because He is wholly impassible,

let not Eutyches be afraid, because we say it according to the property of nature; and rather it is not we who say it, but the Scriptures who speak. For the authority of the Creed holds that the Lord suffered, and the Apostle handed it down, saying: 'For if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory' (I Cor. II, 8); and again, that God did not suffer is taught nonetheless by apostolic authority, Paul speaking thus to the Hebrews: 'For we saw Jesus, made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death; crowned with glory and honour, that He might, apart from God, taste death for all' (Heb. II, 9). What then is it to taste death apart from God, except that the Word is immortal, and the suffering is according to the flesh? Whence also the apostle Peter says:

'Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh' (I Pet. IV, 1). The Passion therefore belongs properly to the flesh according to nature, but to the Word according to person; because of both the Word and the flesh there is one and the same person, and through this God both suffered and did not suffer: He suffered according to the union of person, He is impassible according to the property of nature. IX. And that this very thing may shine forth yet more clearly, we prove it by more evident testimonies. It is established that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on the sixth day, and on that same day descended to hell, on that same day lay in the tomb, on that same day said to the thief: 'This day thou shalt be with me in paradise' (Luke XXIII, 43).

The flesh therefore on that day was not in paradise, nor in hell, but lay lifeless in the tomb. The soul through those three days was in hell, not in the tomb; and yet rightly do we say that the Lord Jesus Christ lay in the tomb, but in the flesh alone; that the Lord Jesus Christ was not forsaken in hell, but in the soul alone. And although in all these Christ is, and in each one of these Christ is, yet there is one Christ, of whom one part was thus in the tomb, another in hell, in such a way that He Himself, one and whole, was nonetheless everywhere, even though He dispensed Himself separately through the several places. Therefore we say that God lay in the tomb, but in the flesh alone; and that God descended into hell, but in the soul alone.

Just as we say that a man heard a voice, but with his ears alone; and saw the light, but with his eyes alone: so we say that God suffered, but in the flesh alone; and that God did not suffer, but in His divinity alone. And through this, because He is also God, there is one Christ, who both suffered according to that which He is as man, and remained impassible according to that which He is as God. Which I shall conclude in a brief saying: God suffered in the union of person, He did not suffer in the property of nature. For indeed even the divinity bore the injuries of the Passion, but His flesh alone fully felt the suffering. Just as we rightly say that a ray of the sun, or the body of a flame, can indeed be cut by a sword, yet cannot be divided:

so we rightly say that the Word of God bore the injuries of the Passion, yet in no way felt the suffering. I shall speak yet more plainly. The divinity was pierced with nails; but it itself could not be penetrated, as His flesh could—since the flesh, laid open, gave place to the wound; for the deity remained indivisible and impenetrable. Thus therefore, by undergoing the sufferings and yet not yielding to their effects, it appears that God the Word suffered impassibly. But because His flesh not only bore all these things but also felt them and yielded; deservedly and rightly do we say that God was sensibly affected with all these conditions of suffering in His flesh, without sense or change of His divinity. Therefore to bear suffering belongs to both natures;

but to yield to suffering does not belong to both natures, since it is of one and the same person. X. Many of the orthodox, less attending to these things, or unwilling to attend, or unable to discern, have divided themselves into two parties—not by diversity of opinion, but by the profession of words; so that what they hold in the same way, they are afraid to pronounce in the same way: indeed by an idle and superfluous fear, so that that prophetic word may rightly be applied to them: 'There they trembled with fear, where there was no fear' (Ps. XIII, 5). For most of the orthodox, while they expound the understanding of both natures in a catholic manner and retain it in a catholic manner,

yet on this account they are unwilling to say two natures, lest, according to Nestorius, they be thought to confess two persons—withdrawing from the confession of both natures not in heart, but in voice only. For they use a certain circumlocution of exposition, so as to show that they believe two, but do not pronounce two in plain speech. For although they believe and confess that not the man, but the Word, descended from heaven, and that the same was so incarnate in the womb of the Virgin, that is, so assumed flesh, that He was not changed into flesh; that the Word was so made man, that He remained true God; that He so assumed our nature, that He neither changed nor cast away His own; that God was so made man and man God, that yet neither of the two was consumed:

who does not see that by this understanding two natures are plainly built up and demonstrated? Since, then, this is gathered by a true exposition and retained as the opinion of the mind, why, by a superfluous fear, is it kept silent in the profession of the voice? Again, others, fearing lest they fall into the doctrine of Apollinaris and Eutyches, are unwilling to say that the Lord suffered and died, although they believe His person to be one, and confess this one and the same to be God and man. If, therefore, He is one as indeed He is, why do you dread to call Him who suffered, whom you do not dread to call one, nor dare to call another according to the impious sense of Nestorius?

Behold, there are most empty fears and vain anxieties, which have made the orthodox fasten upon themselves the names of heretics, while in voice is trodden down what is more expressly cried aloud in the heart. For those who wish to confess with the mouth one person, which they defend by an exposition of the faith, are thought to be Eutychianists, though they are not. Likewise, those who publicly profess two natures of the one Christ are thought to be Nestorians, though they are not. And you may see them, with certain mournful insults worthy of all lamentation, accusing one another by the name of heretic. 'You,' says one, 'are a Eutychianist,' and 'You are a Nestorian'—wholly forgetful of the apostolic saying which declares: 'See that, when you accuse one another, you be not consumed by one another' (Gal. V, 15).

I ask you, since you are sound in understanding, why do you rave in your words? Why do you err through a perverse fear of speech, you who stand firm in the right stability of mind, in the profession of the faith? Why do you fear to say two natures, when the Apostle did not dread to say two forms—one whereby He is God, the other whereby the same God is man? Why do you dread to say two natures, which Athanasius, most approved by the judgment of all ecclesiastical men, said? In which profession of faith all the expositors of the Greek tongue—which I recalled in the earlier book—and all the apostolic men of the Latin tongue, that is, Ultanus, Eusebius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, imbued with heavenly doctrines, agree together and alike.

And you, why do you fear to say that God suffered, when the apostolic proclamations everywhere attest this? Weigh well both the exposition of this little book, and be not afraid to confess with the mouth what is plain to you that you feel in the heart. For it profits nothing to believe in the heart unto righteousness, unless confession also be made with the mouth unto salvation. Whence the Prophet says: 'I have not hidden Thy justice within my heart; I have spoken of Thy truth and Thy salvation' (Ps. XXXIX, 11; cf. Rom. X, 10). Confess therefore also with the mouth what you hold in the heart, that the divine humanity and the human divinity may be propitious to you. 1.

Since the Eutychian heresy has slipped into such impiety that it not only believes one nature of the Word and the flesh, but also says that this very flesh was not assumed from the sacred body of the Virgin Mary, but was brought down from heaven, according to the abominable error of Valentinus and Marcion—so obstinately asserting that the Word was made flesh, that He is seen to have passed through the Virgin as if water through a pipe, yet not so that He is believed to have assumed from the Virgin anything that is of our race—I have judged it best to destroy also this portion of impiety by the assertion of truth, and to dispel utterly the dark mist of the foul doctrine.

Especially because it profits much toward the truth of the confession of both natures to prove by divine testimonies that the Son of God took a human body from the flesh of the Virgin. II. Therefore, since these men, according to the more correct path of the catholic faith and the authority of the Council of Nicaea, confess that the Son of God was begotten not from without, not from nothing, but from the Father, and is of the same nature of which the Father is—so that the truth of His generation may be especially recognized, if in the Son the property of the Father's nature is not denied—they must be admonished, according to this rule of confession, that this same Son, born of the Virgin, assuredly had the nature of the flesh of that same Virgin.