Works 3 part 6/8

XIII, 10]), once made more amended, received back into the grace of peace. If indeed it is so, or it is true, as these men contend with petulant arrogance. Then they accuse the Synod of Chalcedon of having decreed other and new things than those which had been established by the Council of Nicaea; not knowing the rule and custom of the catholic councils, that thus new decrees are sanctioned by later councils, as the necessity of emerging heretics has demanded; yet so that the things which had earlier been promulgated by the more ancient councils against the old heretics remain unconquered.

For if after the statutes of the Council of Nicaea nothing more may be received, by what authority should we dare to assert the Holy Spirit to be of one substance with the Father, since it is agreed that this was there altogether passed over in silence? And although concerning the diverse sanctions of the councils and the religiously added novelties of names, it has been most fully expressed by us in those books which we wrote against Sabellius, Photinus, and Arius under the name of Athanasius, as though those present were dealing with those present (where also the person of an Examiner seems to be introduced);

nevertheless even now, for the sake of brevity, we insert a very few things, from which it may be clear that those men are exceedingly inexperienced and rash, who do not know that, after the Synod of Nicaea, against the insane outbreaks of new heretics, bishops gathered in diverse places issued many constitutions of the faith. III. And first indeed at Alexandria, Athanasius, Eusebius, Lucifer through a legate, and a certain number who had recently been brought back from exile, assembled. Although they were few in number, yet great in merits, they composed against Macedonius a most full rule of confession concerning the deity of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating him to be of the same substance of which the Father and the Son are:

against whom he, just as these men also do, relied on the authority of the Council of Nicaea, asserting that they had deviated from the opinions of the Fathers by decreeing new and, as he himself said, impious things concerning the Holy Spirit, which it is agreed were not there handed down. By which prescription of impiety, Apollinaris too uses against the Church his most wicked interpretation of the incarnate Word. Finally, against the sacrilegious unity of the impious profession which had been composed at Sirmium through Osius, Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, and the others of like depravity, all the Eastern bishops, coming together, issued other definitions, that is, of twelve sentences, which are not contained in the Council of Nicaea.

Likewise at Sardica the bishops of all the provinces of the East gathered together, that is, of the Thebaid, Palestine, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Bithynia, the Hellespont, Asia, the two Phrygias, Pisidia; of the Cyclades islands, Pamphylia, Caria, Lydia; of Europe, Thrace, Haemimontus, Mysia, the two Pannonias. This faith, they say, we have set forth. In which are found to have added seven chapters of definitions to the Nicene exposition, which those denied against whom the council had been gathered.

But of that catholic council at Sirmium, gathered from the whole East against Photinus, who would suffice to comprehend the manifold sanctions of the faith, which at the Synod of Nicaea, because there had been no necessity of such a matter, were not at all sanctioned, which no one of the faithful dares to reject, or hesitates to receive, if he does not wish to lie subject, together with Photinus, to the sentence of their anathema? IV.

But now let us look at those questions which these men bring forward concerning the two natures, of which they assert that no mention was ever made by the ancient expositors of the Church, but that it was invented as a new dogma by the bishops Diodore, and Theodore, and Leo, through which the error of both Judaism and paganism was introduced, while it persuades us to confess that there is in Christ something created and made. O men inexperienced and ignorant of every sacrament of truth! Did the ancient Fathers, then, nowhere make mention of two natures in Christ? Read, O wretches, what Athanasius, Hilary, John, and Ambrose, confessors; what Theophilus, Gregory, Basil, Cyril, and Augustine discourse concerning the two natures;

and at last cease from the error of Apollinaris and Eutyches: following those excellent and most illustrious men, most approved in the catholic faith by the judgment of the whole world, whose opinions it will be necessary for us, where we shall see it opportune, to append. Now this is to be taught by divine testimonies: that Christ is created according to the truth of his human nature, and that the same is uncreated according to the property nonetheless of his divine nature. But let us hasten to show the one thing which these men deny. Peter therefore in the Acts of the Apostles says thus: Let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ this same Jesus whom you have crucified (Acts II, 36). Likewise Paul to the Romans:

Concerning his Son, he says, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. I, 3). Likewise to the Galatians: But when the fullness of times came, God sent his Son, made of a woman (Gal. IV, 4). Likewise to the Hebrews: Consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus, who is faithful to him that made him (Heb. III, 1). Likewise there: So much, he says, made better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they (Heb. I, 4). And the Son himself through Isaiah: And now, he says, the Lord saith, who formed me from the womb to be his servant (Isa. XLIX, 5). And through Solomon he likewise testifies himself to have been created in this manner: The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways (Prov. VIII, 22).

Which he spoke beforehand, anticipating according to the nature of the humanity which he was to take up in the fullness of time. Since, then, it is clear that Christ was created or made according to that which he deigned to become man, either concede this to his human nature, or, if you are unwilling to concede it, you will affirm that the nature of his divinity was created: and thus you will be convicted, together with the Arians or with the gentiles, of venerating and worshiping a creature. V. Likewise, to destroy the profession of either nature, they glory in this as if in an inevitable syllogism, asserting that there is no nature which does not have its own person, nor again a person which does not have its own nature.

They aim at this: that, since we profess Christ to have two natures, but according to them each nature is wont to have its own person, it must be necessary, according to the profession of two natures, that Christ have two persons. Yet these men did not take care to teach by any examples that each nature has its own person; but, merely pressing the question, they passed on to this, both to pour mists over the truth, and to pass over in silence the danger of the disputation. But see, I beseech you, how, while they weave snares, they themselves run into inextricable knots of questions.

Let them therefore answer the Arians: how, if each nature has its own person, and each person has its own nature, there are not three natures in the Trinity, just as three persons are also shown to be. Or if there are three persons and one nature, it is false what they say, that each person has its own nature. For so far is it false, that whereas in man there is one nature of the soul, another of the body, yet there is one and the same person of the man. Whence I judge it necessary to extend this discourse a little more widely, and not to use a thoroughly constricted brevity, lest by the very narrowness of brevity we wrap up matters that must necessarily be opened. VI.

In the foregoing books, disputing sufficiently, as I think, concerning the two natures of Christ, we showed how Nestorius and Eutyches, abusing the right lines of the catholic profession to the impiety of their own dogma, have spread over the whole East the densest darkness of error. But because in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of the Word and of the flesh, and two natures, they have undertaken to introduce things to be denied through those things which cannot be denied. For Nestorius, on the occasion of the profession of two natures, strove to show two persons in Christ. But Eutyches, propped up by the patronage of one person, raved that there is one and the same nature of the Word and of the flesh:

and thus each of them dragged the truth of the religious profession to the impiety of his own error: who, if they would use the divine teaching, and follow the apostles as forerunners in their doctrines, would surely acknowledge both two natures in one person, and that one person can be in two natures. Since indeed it cannot be denied, as I said above, that man consists of two natures, namely of soul and of flesh. Yet no one, except one who is foolish and devoid of all reason, would rightly say that man has two persons; or, because again there is one person of man, would rightly suppose that there is one nature of flesh and soul. But that the body and the soul are not of one nature, the Savior taught in the Gospel, saying:

Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul (Matt. X, 28). What therefore is so unheard of, what so foreign and alien to the canonical Scriptures, that, just as we believe and experience one man to be a rational soul and flesh, so we should believe one Christ to be God and man, as the apostles taught, and as apostolic men have handed down to us? VII.

And since our intention is now especially against those who, following the error of one nature, resist with stubborn obstinacy the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, I think it suitable, for grinding to pieces their empty little contradictions and glassy opinions with the hammer of truth, to repeat a few things concerning the human nature of the Son of God, which in him they deny in every way, and to demonstrate how they are not Christians, and are utterly alien from the hope of eternal salvation. The rule of the catholic faith is to confess one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, as true God, so true man, to be one from both, not two in each; himself born without time of the Father, himself born in time of the Virgin:

so that each nativity so holds the one Christ that he suffered no diminishment in himself; retaining in himself what is proper to his own kind, that is, so that both the nature of the Word was not changed into flesh, and the nature of the flesh was not consumed in the Word. Hence the Lord Jesus Christ is the same true God, the same true man, existing from two natures ineffably united in the virginal womb in one person: which natures, since in that marvelous union they were not abolished in him, to demonstrate the subsistence of the property of each, he spoke and acted in one and the same self the things of both: not dividing the voices, not bringing forth the affections, not separating the deeds;

but he himself, one, in himself and to himself agreeing from both and into both, both speaking and accomplishing what was proper. And that what we say may become plain, let us use some example. For instance: I myself am he who with bodily eyes discerns white color or black, and I myself again am he who judges the evil of iniquity and the good of justice with the gaze of the mind, nor yet am I therefore another and another, because each is mine from a different source. For I do not see colors varied with the same eyes with which I see discourses varied, and yet I am the same one who acts from both: each is mine, both not to see justice except with the eyes of the mind, and it is mine not to see colors except with the eyes of the flesh:

it is mine not to see the voice with the eyes, and it is mine not to hear the light with the ears; it is mine not to discern with the nostrils the taste, and it is mine not to perceive with the palate the smell: and although the whole is mine in myself, that is, to see, to hear, to smell, to taste, nevertheless one thing is to me that whereby I see, another whereby I hear, another whereby I taste and discern odors: and although in me the whole is by a certain private right diverse and divided, yet I myself cannot be divided and separated. So therefore also Christ himself is one and the same, both created and not created; having a beginning, and lacking a beginning; advancing in age and understanding, and not receiving increases of intelligence and age; suffering death, and not subject to the laws of death;

receiving honors on account of merit, and needing no honor: and although all these things are diverse in themselves, yet they are proper to him; and therefore the voices, affections, and deeds congruent to each reality he does not divide in himself, because both that which he has is his; but one thing is to him from the nature of the Word, which remaining God he did not lose, and another thing is to him from the nature of the flesh, which having become man he received... VIII. Let us yet say more manifestly, on account of those who, through the inexperience of their understanding, not understanding how the property and communion of the natures is spoken of in Christ, cast away and flee from all these things. It is diverse and other, not to have a beginning, and to subsist from a beginning; to die, and not to be able to die:

and yet, just as each is proper to Christ himself, so each is common not to himself, but in himself. For if we should say that it is common to him, it is necessary that it be demanded of us to give and show another, with whom this very thing is common to him; which necessity of profession verges into the impious dogma of Nestorius. Better, therefore, and catholically we say that it is common in him and not to him. And better we say it is proper to him, and not in him. Therefore it is proper to him to die, on account of the nature of the flesh, which is mortal; and it is proper to him not to die, on account of the nature of the Word, which cannot die.

Likewise, on account of the ineffable mystery of the union of both natures, the mortality of the flesh was common in him to the nature of the Word, which could not die; and the immortality of the Word is common in him to the nature of the flesh, which succumbed to death. Therefore, just as to die and not to die from both natures is proper to him, so that which is proper to each of them is common in him to both natures. And (that I may speak by way of example) it is proper to me to bear in my body the mark of bruise from any blow, through the nature of my flesh; and it is proper to me not to bear this same mark in my spirit, through the nature of my soul. Likewise it is proper to me to bear the blow of a word, that is, a harsh speech, in my mind, through the nature of my soul;

and it is proper to me not to bear this same blow in my body, through the nature of my flesh. And although each is proper to me, and each is alien both to my body and to my soul; because neither does the body understand a harsh or wounding speech, nor does the soul grow livid from the wound of a scourge: yet each is common in myself, both to my soul and to my body; because neither did the soul, apart from the body, perceive that which was proper to it to feel; nor did the body, apart from the partnership of the soul, bear the marks of the blows.

That which therefore is proper to me in the individual parts, and is alien from the individual parts, that is common in myself to the individual parts, which is proper to the individual parts, and yet I myself am one in both, and in myself common; and I myself am one in the individual parts, proper to my very self. IX. Since this is so, the series of the divine letters must be run through by us, and very many testimonies must be heaped up, by which it may be demonstrated how impious and sacrilegious it is to refer those things which are proper to the flesh of Christ to the property of the nature of the Word; and to ascribe those things which are proper to the Word to the property of the nature of the flesh: and how it is nonetheless impious, by an exception of property, to alienate from the Word those things which are proper to the flesh;

and that the things proper to the Word are, by the same law of exception, alienated from the flesh; whereas both belong to both in Christ, and Christ is both. And since the professors of one nature flatter themselves with this confession, saying: 'What was impossible or unfitting for the dignity of the Son of God, that in the nature of His divinity, for the redemption of our salvation, He should endure whatever unworthy and lowly things He willed, by which He might rather stir up in us a fuller affection of charity to love Him, suffering for us in His own nature those things which are deemed unworthy of Him?' — it must be demanded of them why He who by His own death was about to destroy death, as the prophet had also foretold, saying: 'I will be thy death, O death' (Hosea 13:14):

if this was possible for Him, that is, to die in His own nature, what need had He to be born of a Virgin? But surely His kindness is to be admired in this, in this is shown the great affection of His mercy toward us, that since His death had been necessary for us, yet He could not die in His own nature, He deigned to assume our nature, in which He might be able to die for us, which had been necessary. X. But let us concede to them, against the faith of all Scripture and the catholic truth, that He deigned to die for us in His own nature (which is altogether impossible) and bore all the sufferings of human frailty;

did His nature then need to be exalted with honours and increased with advances of dignity, so that by the merit of His humility and obedience and death He might hold the summit of lofty merits, and might deserve to receive the power of heaven and earth, as one who did not have it before? Or will they utterly deny that all these things were conferred upon the Lord Jesus Christ on account of the merit of His passion and death? Let them read the Apostle saying of Him: 'He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: wherefore God also hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things under the earth' (Philippians 2:8). And David:

'He shall drink,' he says, 'of the brook in the way: therefore shall He lift up the head' (Psalm 109:7). 'Of the brook in the way,' that is, of the river of human death; 'therefore shall He lift up the head,' because He tasted death. And He Himself in the Gospel says: 'Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life for My sheep' (John 10:17). What then does it seem to you? Was the nature of the Word an exile and devoid of the honours of greatness and glory, or did it abide with the Father in eternity with an imperfect or scanty love: and therefore sought to undergo such things, by which it might become more acceptable and honourable, and might be eminent with more excellent merits? 'He exalted Him,' he says, 'and gave Him a name which is above every name' (Philippians 2:9).

Did the Word then, up to that time, not have the name which is above every name, but earn by works what by nature it did not have? Likewise to the Hebrews he says: 'Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they' (Hebrews 1:4). Who would rush into so great an abyss of impiety? Who, blinded by such a cloud of madness, would fall to the point of supposing that Christ according to the nature of His divinity was made better than the angels? For neither can His divine nature be compared or likened to the angels, as though by comparison with them it might be found more excellent and better, since it is incomparably more eminent than all natures. But also that which he says:

'Being made better than the angels,' wills that to be understood as something later, which was made better by comparison with what preceded. And what else will this be but His human nature? When he also describes Him as having received a better name, this can in no way be referred to His divine nature. For who could be found superior and better than the nature of the Trinity, who might both give and impose upon it a name better than the angels — since it belongs to those who are better to bestow names upon their inferiors? Who then does not see that these things befit in the Son of God the nature of His flesh, according to which He was both exalted and honoured and attained the dignity of a better name — He who according to the nature of the Word never had need of any of these things? XI.

Let us therefore further pursue all the gifts of His blessedness, acquired by the merit of His passion, by which it will appear clearer than light that they cannot befit Him according to that whereby He is God by nature, but according to that whereby He was made man by nature. The prophet Isaiah therefore says: 'If He shall lay down His soul for sin, He shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be directed in His hand. For that His soul hath laboured, He shall see the light and be filled with knowledge, to justify the just one well serving many, and He shall bear their iniquities:'

'therefore He shall possess many, and He shall divide the spoils of the strong, because He hath delivered His soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked, and bore the sins of many, and prayed for the transgressors' (Isaiah 53:10). See how great are the things which the prophetic word describes that He would attain on account of the merit of His passion. 'He shall see,' he says, 'a long-lived seed; He shall see the light and be filled with knowledge; He shall possess many and divide the spoils of the strong.' All of which I think do not befit Him according to the nature of the Word — which it is superfluous to demonstrate, since the very evidence of the facts makes it manifest.

Likewise, that He received the power of heaven and earth, and the inheritance of the nations, and the subjection of all things, both He Himself of Himself in the Gospels, and the prophets speak. Does He then not have power and dominion over His creation, as the Creator of all, that in the last times He should obtain all these things by way of gift? He says therefore after His resurrection: 'All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth' (Matthew 28:18). Which power the Father had once promised, saying: 'Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession' (Psalm 2:8). That this petition of the Son and the bestowal of the Father were fulfilled in the time of the passion,

the prophet Isaiah testifies that it was fulfilled in the time of the passion, announcing it from the person of the Father. 'Thus saith the Lord,' he says: 'In an acceptable time I have heard Thee, and in the day of salvation I have helped Thee, and I have formed Thee, and given Thee for a covenant of the nations, that Thou mightest establish the lands, and inherit the desolate heritages, and that Thou mightest say to them that are in chains: Come forth; and to them that are in darkness: Be revealed' (Isaiah 49:8). Likewise the Son Himself in the same prophet: 'And now saith the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His servant, that I might bring back Jacob unto Him; and I am glorified in the eyes of the Lord, and my God is become my strength. And He said: It is a great thing for Thee that Thou shouldest be My servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to gather the dispersions of Israel.

Behold, I have set Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations, that Thou mayest be My salvation unto the end of the earth' (Isaiah 49:6). Who is so stupid and alien of mind, that he does not see, does not understand, that to be formed from the womb, and to merit to be made a servant, and to be heard in an opportune time, and to look for the Father's aid, and to be strengthened in the Lord, and to receive the possession of the lands in time, properly pertains to Him? XII. But further, if it is not idle, let us bring forward a few things which can in no way be referred to the nature of His divinity. Thus then the Father speaks of Him through Isaiah: 'Behold My servant, I will uphold Him: My elect, in whom My soul is well pleased:'

'I have put My Spirit upon Him, to bring forth judgment to the nations' (Isaiah 42:1). He Himself likewise of Himself: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,' He says, 'because He hath anointed Me, He hath sent Me to preach to the poor' (Luke 4:18). And David to the same: 'Therefore,' he says, 'God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.' And from the person of the Father: 'I have laid help upon One that is mighty, and have exalted One chosen out of My people' (Psalm 88:20). And Peter of Him: 'A stone,' he says, 'rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious' (1 Peter 2:4). Can the Son of God be called 'elect' from that nature whereby He is God, and not rather from that whereby He was made man;

so that the nature of divinity should be chosen therefrom, which is one and which cannot be reckoned among many? For the Church says in the Song of Songs: 'My beloved is chosen out of many' (Song 5:10). And the Father: 'I have exalted One chosen out of My people' (Psalm 88:20). Tell me then, O you professors of one nature: since the nature of God is one, how or whence can it be called 'chosen'? Who was superior to it, that he could choose it out of many?

Or did it perhaps choose itself out of the midst of the people, and although no one chooses himself and His election is openly said to have been made by God, yet if it chose itself in the last times, in all that prior time it was uncertain and unknown, mingled in the confusion of the people and of its fellows, from whose fellowship it deserved to be chosen and anointed by the Holy Spirit? For David says: 'He anointed Thee above Thy fellows' (Psalm 45:8). Therefore the divine nature is chosen, and anointed, and has the Holy Spirit over it. 'I have given,' he says, 'My Spirit upon Him' (Isaiah 42:1). And the Son Himself: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me' (Luke 4:18). And how is the Holy Spirit equal to the Son, when He is described as being over Him?

But Isaiah says of Him: 'And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, and the Spirit of wisdom shall fill Him' (Isaiah 11:2). And Luke in the Gospel: 'And the child grew, and was strengthened, and was filled with wisdom' (Luke 1:80; 2:52). Whence it is manifest that the Son of God is not, according to the nature of the Word, chosen out of many, or strengthened, or filled with wisdom. For it does not belong to the nature of the Word to be strengthened, since it is itself power; nor to receive increases of growth, since it is perfect in itself; nor to be filled with wisdom, since it itself fills all things; nor is it His to be chosen, since rather He Himself chooses, and has not whence He may be chosen.