We could indeed bring forward many things similar to the foregoing from the sayings of the same blessed Eustathius, which could fill an entire volume; but let these suffice for the reader, since we wish to pass on to the writings of others, of whom likewise we set forth not all the things they have said that are similar to these, but only some few. We must therefore also examine what holy Athanasius says in his letter to the Antiochenes: 'For being instructed out of the ancients and being a teacher of the law, when he read the Proverbs of Solomon and found two persons spoken of concerning the Lord—one indeed touching the man whom Mary was for our sakes to take upon herself to bear for Him, the other touching the Word who before all ages was begotten eternally of the Father—he writes of Jesus who is of Mary to Timothy:'
'Remember that Christ Jesus rose from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel' (2 Tim. 2:8); but of God the Word, who is always with the Father, he said that He is all things. Now this letter of holy Athanasius to the Antiochenes, in which it is written that there are two persons—of the man assumed and of God the Word who assumes—and that some words of Scripture befit the Lord Jesus who is of Mary, but others befit God the Word, the Church received with such great authority against the Apollinarists, that those who were converted from that heresy professed by their own subscription that they so believed.
Hence Peter, the successor of this same Athanasius, writing to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons who under the Emperor Valens had been sent into exile at Diocaesarea, says: 'For he is without God, and in all things reprobate, who does not confess that the Saviour by His coming saved the whole man. If He saves the whole, He assumed the whole, not as an aid to salvation, but for the salvation of the whole. Let no one, therefore, who thinks he holds godly belief, prove himself rather unfaithful. But if he is eager to inquire, let him learn from the letter which Bishop Athanasius of blessed memory writes to the Antiochenes, where he sets forth all things diligently; and the orthodox, when they begin to read it, affirm that they both so believe and have so subscribed.'
In this same letter to the Antiochenes, then, in which the successor Peter declared that Bishop Athanasius of blessed memory had diligently set forth all things, this also is contained: 'Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever' (Heb. 13:8). 'Yesterday indeed signifies the everlasting eternity before the ages; today, however, the earthly age; and forever, after the passing of this life. But Jesus Christ, who is understood according to the man of the Saviour, is not the same one; for he who took on the advance of age, being at one time an infant, and at another time a man beginning at about thirty years, as Luke says, cannot be the same. How, then, when Theodore is condemned, is not Athanasius also accused, as though he had taught two Jesuses and two Christs—
since, speaking first of Jesus Christ, who is yesterday and today forever, he afterward said that Jesus Christ, who is understood according to the man of the Saviour, is not the same one, and adds the reason why he cannot be the same? Yet if Theodore had said this, the Eutychians, according to their slanders, would have wished it to be understood that not two only, but even three Jesus Christs were signified in these words. For at least this was not said—'But Jesus Christ, who is understood according to the Saviour'—but 'according to the man of the Saviour': so that they might say that one thing was signified as Jesus Christ, another as the man according to whom this Jesus Christ existed, and yet another as the Saviour, whose this same man was said to be.
Again, in the same letter he says: 'There is a holy Spirit of life with the Father and the Son, passing through generations in each of the prophets, who indicates what shall be and what has been, having eyes before and behind'—that is, as we have said, knowledge of things future and past—'which in Solomon He narrates from the person of the son of man who is of Mary, and of the Son of God the Word, who from the beginning was with the Father; signifying two persons—of the man indeed created and fashioned of Mary, but of Him who is before the ages without beginning, and of an eternal nativity.
Since therefore the seducers of words, and those who, not being instructed in the Spirit, cause the unlearned to err, saying that the working of the Lord's body is from four hundred years ago, and that some refer to Him what was said: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works" (Prov. 8:22)—whereas Scripture says that He was begotten and created before the mountains and hills, before the springs, and before the age? Those who say these things suppose they are praised by certain men, not dividing which person the prophetic Spirit proclaims concerning the body of the Lord, and which it teaches concerning His eternal generation from the Father.' There are many similar things in this letter, which, though said against the Apollinarists, the Nestorians also take up for the assertion of their own error.
But not for that reason is Athanasius or his doctrine to be condemned. Therefore neither let it be said that Theodore or his doctrine ought to have been condemned by the synod for that reason. But we have chosen to pass on to his other little works. So the same blessed Athanasius says in his exposition of the creed: 'He who in the end of the ages, descending from the bosom of the Father, took from the immaculate Virgin Mary our man Jesus Christ, whom He delivered up to the passion for us;' and a little after: 'The Beginning of the ways was established for us upon the earth, who showed us light out of darkness, salvation out of error, life out of the dead, an entrance into the paradise from which Adam was excluded; into which He entered again through the thief, as the Lord said: "Today you shall be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43);
into which Paul also entered'—the ascent into heaven, into which as our forerunner the Lord's man entered for us, in whom He is to judge the living and the dead. And after a while: 'But that salvation which has been established for us, for our planting, is new and not old, ours and not theirs who were before us—Jesus, who according to the Saviour was made man, which is interpreted shepherd, salvation, and sometimes also saviour.' Let them therefore slander this one too, as though, after the manner of Nestorius, he says that the Son of God is one, but our man Jesus Christ another: because he does not say that the Son of God delivered Himself up for us, as the Apostle said, but rather that the Son, descending from the bosom of the Father, assumed our man Jesus Christ. Whom?
namely the one of whom he says 'the Lord's man, in whom He is to judge the living and the dead'—as though, by a perverse sense, he supposed the Lord the Son to be one, who is to judge the living and the dead, but the Lord's man another, in whom He is to judge. Let them slander likewise what he says, 'Jesus is He who according to the Saviour was made man,' saying that thereby he separated Jesus from the Saviour, since he called Him according to the Saviour rather than the Saviour. He also wrote a book against the Manichaeans, the beginning of which is: 'Truth dissolves error,' in which he speaks thus: 'For when I see the man Jesus, I understand what He is; but when I contemplate His manner, I marvel and do not recognize, for the change affords wonder.'
'And the essences indeed are not changed, for the body remains, not made into another; for neither was the body turned into something incorporeal, nor did the soul exist as another by essence. But while the essences remained, the pursuits did not remain. For the pursuits are by no means essential; for they would remain along with the essences and would not be taken away.' If all the things which our presumptuous men, in their dullness, could neither defend nor rightly understand are to be condemned according to their own will, how are these things too not to be condemned? Or if they can well understand and defend these, why do they not also well understand and defend those sayings of Theodore which are blamed to the prejudice of the synod of Chalcedon?
Behold, Athanasius also says this: that when he contemplates the manner in the man Jesus, he marvels and does not recognize, because the change affords him wonder. Let them therefore tell us by what reasoning, when Theodore and his teachings are condemned under anathema, the doctrine of Athanasius can be defended, if the sayings of our forebears are to be judged according to the sound of the words and not according to the intention of the mind. And let them teach what change was made in the man Jesus, the essences being unchanged; or what pursuits in Him did not remain while those very essences remained. For if Theodore were found to have said these things, they would so detest him as though he had proclaimed that Christ was converted from depravity of life and from evil pursuits to better pursuits:
which Athanasius assuredly did not think, and far be it from us to believe that he thought this—that the man Jesus was at some time divided from God the Word not only by a personal division, as Nestorius held, but even by pursuits that were not good! Moreover this last point, and the other higher matters of his which we have mentioned, require an interpreter. For with God's help they are defended much more easily than the blessed Athanasius himself defends the sayings of his predecessor Dionysius. And we could indeed, according to the ability which the Lord supplies, show how these very things are rightly understood, and render to the kindly and pious Father this return of duty in his own sayings, which he himself first rendered in the sayings of his predecessor Dionysius;
were it not that this is a lengthy matter, and that in this work we have undertaken not to interpret the writings of the venerable Fathers, but to refute the slanders of the Eutychians on behalf of the great synod; for the rebutting of which it suffices, if those Fathers, whom they dare not blame, are shown to have said things such as these, or even more difficult than the things for which they say Theodore and the letter that praises him ought to have been condemned by that synod.